Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL
[Lords] (By Order)

Order read for consideration of Bill, as amended.

To be considered on Thursday 14 July at Seven o'clock.

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL
AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 July.

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Lang: presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lerwick harbour; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Wednesday 13 July and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Illegal Drug Trading

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the enforcement of the law with regard to illegal trading in class A drugs.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Tackling the trade in hard drugs is a key priority for the police and customs. We do all that we can to support their efforts. The Government have a comprehensive strategy to reduce both the supply of and the demand for drugs.

Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate those constituents of mine—and some of his—who work in the customs and in the police in our area to ensure that this country has much less drug trafficking than it might otherwise have? They are very successful and have had a number of catches recently. Will he also give every support to those involved in that work? Will he confirm that the Government want nothing to do with the trendy, lefty, liberal establishment which wants to legalise hard and soft drugs?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted both to give him the confirmation which he sought and to congratulate his constituents and mine.

Recently, there have been some notable major seizures by the customs—500 kg of cannabis on 16 January, 30 kg of cocaine on 2 March, 20 kg of cocaine on 10 April and 20 kg of heroin by the police last month. The whole House should join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police and customs on those successes.

Mr. Blair: While congratulating the police and customs, may I ask the Home Secretary to agree that it is also important to take measures to cut the demand for drugs, especially among young people? Does he agree that it is appalling that some of our young people are gaining access to drugs even within their school gates? Would not it be a better idea if, instead of spending millions fiddling about with police authorities, we were to spend that money on a decent drugs education programme for our young people?

Mr. Howard: We spend something like £500 million a year dealing with drugs on trying to reduce both the supply of, and the demand for, drugs. If the hon. Gentleman, who I know is pretty busy at the moment, were to find the time to talk to some of the Home Office drugs prevention initiative teams up and down the country which are doing tremendous work with parents, children and schools and on the streets reducing the demand for drugs, as I have, he would see that the Government are taking the problem extremely seriously and are taking effective action to counter it.

Maastricht Treaty

Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss areas of the Maastricht treaty which fall within his Department's remit.

Mr. Howard: The next meeting of Interior and Justice Ministers is expected to be an informal Council in Berlin on 7 and 8 September 1994.

Ms Quin: While I welcome the Franco-German initiative at Corfu to combat race discrimination, would not this be an excellent opportunity—given the fact that a new European Commission is to be appointed—to make sure that the need to combat racial discrimination in the enlarged market is included in the remit of one of the new Commissioners? That is something which Labour has urged.
What steps is the Home Secretary taking to make sure that Commonwealth passport holders who have permanent residence rights in the United Kingdom are given equal treatment in the European Union under freedom of movement and other European rules?

Mr. Howard: The Government welcomed the recent Franco-German initiative, and it is widely recognised that the way in which we deal with race relations in this country is something from which our partners in Europe could learn. We discuss these matters with them at every opportunity—in European Councils and other places. One of the things that we stress to them in those discussions is the need to give free access to their countries to Commonwealth citizens from this country.

Mr. Dykes: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his extremely interesting letter in The Times


today. Can he confirm, subsequent to that long-standing tradition in the Labour party, that he is getting wonderful support for the integrated formation of Europol policy?

Mr. Howard: The Labour party has been rather silent on Europol policy, but no doubt Opposition Members will rise to welcome it at an early opportunity. I look forward to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) getting to his feet now and answering the point that I made in my letter to The Times.

Drink Driving

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the law on drink driving.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): None, Madam Speaker. Existing legislation provides for strong penalties against those who drink and drive. The Criminal Justice Act 1993 increased to 10 years' imprisonment the maximum penalty for those who cause death by drink driving.

Dr. Wright: Is the Minister aware that, as the law stands, the police have no power to require the taking of a sample in a hospital from a suspected drink driver? Can he imagine the distress and disbelief felt by the family of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, who were killed by a suspected drink driver? That person was taken to hospital and the police were unable to take a sample from him. Because no proper charges were brought, the man was able to walk away from court with his licence intact and with a fine of only £400. Is not that an outrageous anomaly? Why did the Government refuse my request to correct it during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill? Will the Minister undertake to do so now?

Mr. Wardle: As was explained during the passage of the Bill, such samples cannot be taken without the patient's consent and the doctors would not allow that. I have every sympathy for the difficulties experienced by his constituents, but that was explained to him during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Congdon: Given the success in reducing drink driving, does my hon. Friend agree that the danger of introducing random testing is that it would alienate the law-abiding majority from the police?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we have had great success with our campaign against drink driving. That is evidenced by the most recent figures, which show that the number of fatalities has dropped by 60 per cent. since the campaign started in the early 1980s. My hon. Friend will appreciate that police officers have the right to conduct random checks of motor vehicles, but that they are not entitled to carry out random breath tests.

Mr. Miller: The Minister must be concerned about the number of incidents in which people have avoided prosecution, except on minor offences. For example, a brother of one of my constituents was killed in an accident, but the driver was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. Will the Minister look carefully at the different ethical approaches adopted by other countries to see

whether a solution can be found to the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright)?

Mr. Wardle: The House has already heard that additional sentencing powers were provided in the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The hon. Member will be aware that, last year, 600,000 breath tests were conducted and 15 per cent. of those were positive, so the campaign is proving effective.

Lenient Sentences

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Attorney-General to discuss the policy of appeals against lenient sentences.

Mr. Howard: I meet my right hon. and learned Friend frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest. We share the same view of the importance of the power contained in section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Mr. Burns: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Attorney-General, will he raise with him the concern that is felt about the baffling sentences that are all too often imposed on people convicted of killing other people, young children and the elderly in road accidents caused by reckless or drink driving and other reasons? It causes great anguish to families. Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the sentences available on conviction of such crimes and consider extending the powers to refer lenient punishments to the Court of Appeal, as the law applies to other serious crimes?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will have heard the Under-Secretary of State tell the House a moment or two ago that the maximum sentence for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was increased in the Criminal Justice Act 1993 from five to 10 years. I confirm that the Attorney-General's power to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal applies to both those offences.

Burglaries

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of burglaries (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Howard: In 1979, 544,037 burglaries were recorded by the police. In 1993, 1,369,998 burglaries were recorded.

Mr. Grocott: Does not that reflect an astronomical rise in serious crime under this Government? I remind the Secretary of State that in 1979 we had a Labour Government and by 1993 we had had 14 years of Tory rule. Will he answer two simple questions? First, why has crime rocketed under the Tories? Secondly, if he continues his present law and order policies, what is his latest estimate of the year in which crime under a Tory Government will be reduced to the level that it was under a Labour Government?

Mr. Howard: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be more interested in the fact that in the last quarter of 1993, recorded burglaries in


West Mercia, which covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency, decreased by 7 per cent. If he wants to know why, he should take note of the comments of the chief constable of West Mercia, who said:
The increasing tactic of police to target offenders coupled with the increased use of remands in custody over the past year, may well have combined to remove from circulation some 'bail bandits', people who commit offences repeatedly.
So I look forward to support from the hon. Gentleman for the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which deals even more effectively with the problem of bail bandits.

Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a significant number of those burglaries are carried out by relatively few persistent young offenders? Does he accept that long-suffering residents in my constituency and others would be happy to see such anti-social young people detained in secure units? Will he ensure that we have an opportunity to reverse their lordships' amendment at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Howard: I entirely understand the concern that lies behind my hon. Friend's question and I hope that those Opposition Members who complain about crime will join me in regretting and deploring the fact that their colleagues in the other place voted to delay the time at which we shall be able to bring those secure training centres into effect. They bear the responsibility for that delay. We will, in due course, construct the secure training centres, which are so badly needed.

Ms Eagle: Instead of coming into the House and just reading the brief that he has been given, will the Home Secretary answer the questions and reassure my constituents who know that if they are burgled, it is rare that anyone will be caught and punished for the crime? What will he do to ensure that when people steal other people's belongings, they have a reasonable chance of being caught?

Mr. Howard: That is precisely what the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is designed to achieve. If the hon. Lady and her party had not consistently tried to wreck and undermine it, it would probably be on the statute book by now.

Prison Building

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to build more prisons.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Six new prisons are to be built under the private sector design, control and finance initiative announced on 2 September 1993. Sites for the first two have been identified at Fazakerley in Merseyside and at Bridgend in south Wales.

Lady Olga Maitland: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent news on the prison building programme. Will he confirm the measures that he is planning to provide effective drug abuse treatment in prisons in the future, both in the maintained mainstream sector and the private sector?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. That is an extremely important problem. Drugs do get into prisons, both public and private. They should not. We are seeking powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, as I

think that my hon. Friend knows, so that prisoners can be required to be tested. That is the essential feature of the new strategy that we are developing, and of course it will include the private sector.

Mr. Hoyle: How can the Minister contemplate building any more private prisons when Derek Lewis, head of the Prison Service, has admitted to the Public Accounts Committee that the Wolds is costing £1 million more to run than it would cost if it were in the public sector, that it is costing £1.5 million more to pay Group 4 to manage the Wolds than was estimated, and that Group 4 has lost—a familiar word—control of certain sections of the Wolds prison? Will not even this Minister now admit that the time has come for the Prison Service to be administered by common sense rather than political prejudice?

Mr. Lloyd: The prejudice is all on the hon. Gentleman's part. All the points that he made and all the figures that he quoted were wrong. The Wolds is being run for £3 million less over five years than the benchmark of the Prison Service. The contract was awarded on that basis, and it will continue on that basis. There is no loss of control in the Wolds. The Wolds is pioneering new types of effective management. If the hon. Gentleman had read the chief inspector's report, he would have seen that the inspector found that the staff who run the Wolds were busy, hardworking and professional, and that their instinctive reaction was to solve problems rather than pass them on. That is the example that we want for the whole of the Prison Service.

Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when it comes to building new prisons for persistent juvenile offenders, he will insist that the will of this House should prevail, rather than that of the interfering busybodies down the Corridor— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not even have to ask the hon. Gentleman. I can see by his face what he is about to do.

Mr. Martin: Rather than that of those who sit from time to time in the other place, who are remote from the real worries of my constituents, and who, when they are there, represent no one but themselves.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said will be heard at the other end of this building, in another place. He can be quite sure that the question will return to the Chamber, so that the House may express its views on it again.

Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister confirm that, at the new Blakenhurst private prison, United Kingdom Detention Services refused to recognise trade unions, that assaults on staff are at least four times the norm, that there have been seven acts of concerted indiscipline, including one riot, and that eight warnings have been issued to the company, resulting in two default notices for failure to comply and a financial penalty of more than £40,000? Does the Minister really believe that that is a model for the prisons of the future?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady must know, if she looks across the Prison Service, that all prisons have their problems, especially when they are starting up. First, the impressive thing about Blakenhurst is how quickly its problems were brought under control. Secondly—I think


that the hon. Lady found it a fault, but my hon. Friends and the public at large would find it something quite different—when Blakenhurst failed in a certain degree in its contract, it lost money as a result. The Home Secretary has the leverage to obtain the type of Prison Service that he wants from the private sector which is, alas, absent in the public sector, occasionally to the detriment of the performance of the public sector.

Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend note that there is still considerable concern about the number of mentally ill people in our mainstream prisons and about the frequent lack of specialist medical attention in prison hospital wings? Will he ensure that he looks carefully at providing secure accommodation for those people, but with adequate medical provision?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right to perceive that as an important problem, but the place for mentally disordered offenders is not prison, but the national health service outside. Over the past few years, each year a much larger number of such prisoners has been moved out into the health service. The only bar to the speedy movement in every part of the country is places within the health service. The Prison Service medical staff are alive to the problem and are constantly in touch with the health service about it.

Mr. Trimble: Can the Minister comment on the prison transfers currently taking place from England to Northern Ireland? Is not part of the problem the differences that exist in the prison regimes of England and Northern Ireland, in relation to both the conditions of custody and the release procedures? Would not those difficulties be minimised if there were roughly similar prison regimes in both jurisdictions?

Mr. Lloyd: If there were roughly similar regimes, there would not be a problem. I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman has successfully asked his question under the heading of private prisons. The delay has not been in making arrangements, but in satisfying ourselves on the legal position of prisoners under the different regimes. We have come to a satisfactory conclusion on that, which is why appropriate transfers are taking place.

European Parliament

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to change the electoral system for the election of UK Members to the European Parliament.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We have no current plans to do so.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister realise that if the United Kingdom had already adopted a more proportional system of electoral representation, the number of seats gained by the Conservatives in the recent UK elections would have risen from an utterly abysmal 18 to a merely awful 23? How many devastating election results will the Conservatives have to suffer before the Minister changes his mind?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady can probably see merit in the prison system— [Interruption.] I am still on the last question. The hon. Lady can probably see some merit in the present system as it looks as though it may have temporarily benefited her party. In the longer run, we should look at the basic merits of the system. Our single

Member constituency, with its direct relationship with the electorate, is one on which we set great value. Our representation in the European Parliament consists of those candidates who received the highest number of votes in their constituencies. I do not complain about that, but I am certain that next time many more Conservative candidates will get a higher vote.

Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only change that we need in the European parliamentary election system is to require Opposition parties to talk about European issues at European elections?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, or talk about the real issues at any election.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister appreciate that, with the ever-closer union in Europe and the extra powers that have been given to the European Parliament—democratically elected though its Members are—more and more people will begin to question the disparity in numbers between Members from various countries in that Parliament. Luxembourg, whose population is less than half that of Birmingham, has six representatives. In addition, the different electoral systems throughout Europe, as well as within the United Kingdom, distort the European Parliament.

Mr. Lloyd: All countries have universal suffrage and all countries have slightly different ways of electing their European Members. Common rules need to be justified by common benefits. It is not obvious that any country would benefit from harmonising the electoral systems.

Crime Prevention (New Technology)

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he has taken to maximise the use of new technology in crime prevention.

Mr. Howard: I attach particular importance to the use of new technology in the fight against crime. Recent initiatives include the successful promotion of closed circuit television as a crime control measure and close co-operation with the vehicle manufacturers to promote the use of effective car immobiliser systems. We are also pushing forward with a number of major new crime and technology initiatives to assist the police in combating crime.

Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that closed circuit television surveillance schemes, many of which have been funded by the urban fund and by the safer cities campaign, have significantly helped to reduce crime in the precincts and car parks of our inner cities and towns? Does he agree that people want more cameras and less crime—not the other way round, as suggested by some civil liberties groups?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend the Minister of State launched a new CCTV scheme in the centre of Liverpool just a couple of days ago. I think that CCTV can make a significant contribution to the fight against crime. We certainly want to encourage its spread.

Mr. Bennett: Although video cameras in shopping areas and housing estates can be a useful way to deter crime and catching criminals, will the Minister accept that


there is now a need for a code of practice governing who should have access to the cameras and the purposes to which they can put the information gained from them?

Mr. Howard: That matter is currently under consideration by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I want to await the results of its deliberations before deciding whether any action needs to be taken. I am in no doubt at all of the contribution that CCTV can make to the fight against crime.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to scotch the rumour in a recent issue of Police Review about plans to disband the national criminal intelligence service? Does he agree that the use by NCIS of information technology is probably the best weapon the police now have to fight international organised crime?

Mr. Howard: I certainly do. NCIS is seen across Europe as a model for how policing against major crime can most effectively be carried out. There is no question of disbanding it; I take this opportunity of paying tribute to its work.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary confer with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on the prevention of car crime through rendering illegal the re-chipping of mobile phones, which is increasingly an objective of the criminal?

Mr. Howard: We are looking at that matter. The National Board for Crime Prevention is conducting an investigation into it. It is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we are certainly examining it.

Pursuit Of Offenders

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances it is permitted for individual police forces to exercise discretion not to post warrants for suspects and bail absconders on the national police computer unless the offences are particularly serious; what consideration he is giving to offenders being pursued by the police in areas other than those in which an alleged offence has been committed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: It is for chief officers to decide how to respond to individual cases, but there can be no question of offenders escaping justice simply by moving to a different area.

Mr. Shersby: I begin by wishing my right hon. and learned Friend a happy birthday. Is he aware of reports that some forces are finding it too expensive to pursue suspects who flee from their home area to another part of the country? Will he consider the possibility of the force in the area to which the suspect has gone dealing with the arrest warrant and the case being heard by a local magistrate in the area concerned?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes. There certainly may be ways in which our present arrangements can be improved, but there can be no excuse for not pursuing offenders who seek to escape justice by moving to different areas. It is the job of the police to make sure that they do not escape justice and that justice is done.

Deregulation

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are being taken to reduce the number of rules and regulations affecting the workings of his Department; and how many officials he employs currently working on deregulation initiatives.

Mr. Charles Wardle: We have reviewed 32 of the 71 regulations affecting business for which the Home Office is responsible, and reviews of the other regulations are in progress or due to start shortly. The Department's deregulation unit involves three officials directly and many others are involved in taking forward deregulation initiatives.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that officials in his and other Departments are blocking an attempt by Conservative Members to institute some sort of local appeal mechanism, so that over-zealous interpretations of rules and regulations can be dealt with uniformly and so that local businesses are not continually crippled by such over-zealous interpretation and the additional unit costs that regulations put on them? Why do not we behave like the French and do nothing at all?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend knows that I am aware of his concerns because he has written to me about them. He is also aware that discretion for the matters that concern him lies with the local licensing justices, who have made it clear to my hon. Friend and his constituents that what is proposed might come up against the Sunday Observance Act 1780. He will be aware that in the deregulation Bill we have taken the initiative on children's certificates. We have also made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend is reviewing other aspects of the licensing system; no doubt my hon. Friend's concerns will then be given due consideration.

Mr. Chisholm: Is one of the rules and regulations that no findings of the Home Office research department should be published if they contradict the views of the Home Secretary? What does the Minister have against evidence and facts?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman no doubt saw a letter in The Guardian from the head of the research department at the Home Office making it clear that that report was utterly without foundation. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was about to stand up and applaud the Government for their various deregulation initiatives: first, with the Sunday Trading Bill, secondly, with the deregulation Bill and thirdly, with the further progress being made within the Home Department on a number of deregulation fronts.

Criminals (Profits From Publicity)

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the profits criminals make as a result of the publicity surrounding their case.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The Government deplore any exploitation of criminal activities for financial gain. We have previously considered legal restraints on chequebook journalism, but there are insurmountable practical problems.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend should know that his answer will not go down very well with my law-abiding and tax-paying constituents in Billericay, who pay taxes to help victims through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Does he agree that it is offensive when criminals pocket profits by telling tall tales to tabloids, thus gaining from their ill-gotten actions and badly written memoirs?

Mr. Maclean: We all deplore such instances. They are offensive, but we have considered carefully whether a law would be appropriate in this case. There would be tremendous difficulty in framing a law that would effectively deal with it. The utter condemnation of other newspapers when such isolated incidents happen is a good and effective policing mechanism.

May Report

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish Sir John May's report into the Guildford and Woolwich case; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclean: The report was published on 30 June.

Mr. Mullin: Did the Home Secretary notice that Sir John May asked that the independent review tribunal to deal with miscarriages of justice be introduced as a matter of urgency, and that the Lord Chief Justice made the same point in a speech last night? Can the Home Secretary give us a clear timetable for the introduction of such a tribunal? Will he also give an assurance that, when it is introduced, it will not be dependent solely on police officers to carry out investigations—a very important point?

Mr. Maclean: The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are committed to the establishment of a criminal cases review body and we are currently considering responses to our discussion paper. Of course, I cannot presume the contents of the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note the full co-operation of the Surrey police in the various inquiries and the way in which they have certainly gained local support and admiration? Will he also note that the people who perpetrated the outrage in Guildford have yet to be apprehended? Would not it be better if some Labour Members worried as much about that as about other aspects of the case?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which will no doubt be heard by those Opposition Members. For my own part, I congratulate Sir John May; his report is rigorous and searching and all those who care about the quality of our criminal justice system have cause to welcome it.

Mr. Michael: But why has not the Home Secretary taken the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to support the view of the Labour party, the Royal Commission on criminal justice, Sir John May and now the Lord Chief Justice that the establishment of a body to investigate miscarriages of justice is now urgent and overdue? During its remaining time in another place, will the Home Secretary accept an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill aimed at establishing such a body? If not, will the Minister today give a categorical

promise of legislation in the next parliamentary Session—no later—to establish a body to investigate miscarriages of justice?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have been listening to what I said. If he thinks that a simple amendment could deal with something as complex and important as the establishment of a criminal cases review authority, he clearly did not listen to the demolition of his arguments in Committee when he proposed a similar unworkable and simplistic system. As I have said, the Government are committed to the establishment of a criminal cases review authority and we are considering the responses that we had to the excellent discussion paper that we launched.

Mr. Brazier: In considering Sir John May's report and the findings of the royal commission, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that with approximately only one crime in 30 resulting in a conviction, for millions of British people the principal source of miscarriages of justice is the courts' inability on many occasions to convict the guilty?

Mr. Maclean: Sir John makes it clear in his report that the definition of a miscarriage of justice is wider than some of the popular notions of it. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Miscarriages of justice occur if an innocent person is found guilty, but it is equally important that we should have a system that ensures that those who are guilty are convicted.

Firearms Licensing

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received in connection with proposals to alter fees for the issue of firearms and shotgun licences; and when he expects to be able to make a decision.

Mr. Charles Wardle: We have received more than 550 letters from right hon. and hon. Members, and more than 370 from members of the public. We hope to be able to make an announcement on fees soon.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister realise that the continuing uncertainty is causing deep-seated feelings among legitimate gun licence holders, particularly in rural constituencies such as my own, where farmers of necessity have to hold such licences? Therefore, will he give a clear date for the announcement?

Mr. Wardle: I understand what the hon. Lady says. She will be able to tell her constituents that the aim of the review has been to ensure that the fees reflect the true cost to the police of operating the system. However, as I have already said, the hon. Lady can expect a report shortly.

Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend recall that, some time ago, I introduced a private Member's Bill, which became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1992, which gave the Home Secretary the power to increase the period covered by firearm and shotgun certificates? Many of us hope that those fees will not be raised, but if they have to be, will he ensure that the period covered by the certificates is also extended?

Mr. Wardle: I remember my hon. Friend's Bill. I seem to remember that it passed through the House shortly before the general election. My hon. Friend's contribution


on that occasion will have been noted. He is right to refer to an extension to the life of the certificate because that is one factor that has been considered. I have no doubt that he will look forward to the announcement of the results of that review shortly.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Minister assuage the natural worries of legitimate firearms owners that they may be paying for inefficiencies in the police administration of the system by publishing the Ernst and Young report before he gives his report on the increase of the fees?

Mr. Wardle: The Ernst and Young report will be published at the same time as the fees are announced. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the point that is of concern to him was also of concern to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which said that in some forces the system was being operated inefficiently. We issued a best practice guidance in order to remedy those errors.

Lockerbie

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the responsibilities of the Home Office in relation to the Lockerbie crime involving the destruction of Pan Am 103; and if he will make a statement on the co-ordination between the specialist services of the Metropolitan police and Scottish police forces on the investigation and prosecution of those responsible.

Mr. Maclean: My Department has an interest in view of our overall responsibility for counter-terrorist policy in Great Britain. The Metropolitan police, the forensic explosives laboratory of the Defence Research Agency and many other police forces and agencies have provided assistance to the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary during the course of the investigation.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the state of the present police investigation into the case of Youssef Chaabane, who claimed in a Beirut court that he had been responsible for placing the bomb on Pan Am 103?

Mr. Maclean: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in this matter, checks again on what happened in the Beirut court. Our understanding is that Chaabane mentioned the Lockerbie bombing only in an outburst. He claimed that, in the face of the interrogation to which he had been subjected in respect of other charges, he would have been willing to confess to anything—even the Lockerbie bombing. In his rigorous researches, the hon. Gentleman must not obscure the central issue, which is that the Libyan Government should fully comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions without further prevarication, so that those who have been charged can stand trial.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Coastguard Service

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether the reduction in resources available to the coastguard service will prejudice safety at sea.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The chief executive of the Coastguard Agency has confirmed that the resources available this year will enable the agency to fulfil its objectives on search and rescue and on oil and chemical spills. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given the House an assurance that he will not allow the efficiency gain that he is seeking to prejudice safety at sea.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Prime Minister accept that the most efficient way to run the coastguard service would be to provide the existing complement of professional and auxiliary personnel—who know their own coastlines, seas and weather conditions—all the equipment, training and back-up that money can buy? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he personally will refuse to sanction further efficiency savings in the coastguard service if there is any suggestion that they would prejudice safety at sea in future? After all, the Prime Minister himself may need the political equivalent of a breeches buoy before too long.

The Prime Minister: Of course we would not do anything to prejudice safety at sea, which is self-evidently of vital importance. It is right to seek efficiency gains where it is thought that they will be available. The agency's chief executive has joined other Department of Transport executive agencies in submitting proposals on how further efficiency gains may be made. I am sure that that is right. The greater the efficiency gain that can be made across the public service, the greater will be the saving to the taxpayer or the improvement in services elsewhere in the public service.

Mr. Harris: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer and assurances, but would not it be quite wrong and unthinkable to apply to coastguard front-line services the 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts that are being considered for other aspects of the Department of Transport? That must be wrong and out of the question. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that does not happen under any circumstances?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is running two things together. There is no presumption that the coastguard service must achieve a 20 per cent. reduction. What is sought is a 20 per cent. efficiency gain. I believe that that is achievable, and the chief executive is investigating how it may be achieved. As I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), that will not be at the expense of the security and safety of people at sea.

Engagements

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Prime Minister aware that Railtrack board members have introduced a new working practice whereby they are paid £500 additional bonus—three times the basic wage of signal staff—simply to attend Railtrack meetings? Will the Prime Minister join me in


agreeing that those additional payments are obscene? Will he take this opportunity to condemn Railtrack's board for making those additional payments?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly make inquiries about what the hon. Gentleman has alleged, and check whether it is true. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also take the interests of the travelling public into account and condemn a strike for an 11 per cent. pay award, which far exceeds what is being paid to anyone else in the public sector. There is no justification for an award of that size at this time. I hope that negotiations will continue and that the strike will be swiftly settled.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a new offence of racial harassment—as recommended by the Select Committee on Home Affairs—together with new measures to tackle the publication of racist material, will be major steps forward in the fight against racial attacks?

The Prime Minister: We abhor any crime in which any element of racial motivation is present. That is precisely why we have added to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill a new offence to tackle that particular mischief. I believe that that is desirable, and will achieve widespread support among all shades of opinion.

Mrs. Beckett: On Tuesday, the Leader of the House rejected doctors' criticisms of the Government's health service changes; today, the health service ombudsman has published strong criticism from patients. Are they wrong, too?

The Prime Minister: Like the right hon. Lady, I have not yet had a chance to read the whole of the ombudsman's report. The ombudsman examines a minority of the cases referred to him, and does not comment on the generality of health service treatment. I understand that some of the reports that have been evident earlier today have been repudiated by the commissioner, but, as I said, like the right hon. Lady, I have not yet had a chance to read the full report.

Mrs. Beckett: But the Prime Minister must know, as I do, that it reveals a record number of complaints. Does he not recognise that the ombudsman, doctors, nurses, patients and Opposition Members are all saying the same thing—that the Government's health service changes are making matters worse? When will the Prime Minister drop them?

The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House will have noted that the right hon. Lady did not say that she had read the report about which she claims to be speaking so authoritatively. Of course we will take the Health Service Commissioner's report seriously: we are anxious to ensure that the health service continues to improve, and, according to the test set out by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), it is. He said that the test of the reforms was whether more patients were treated. They are—1 million more every year.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the Prime Minister denying that the report shows a record number of complaints this year? Is he denying that? I doubt it very much. Only under the present Government would a record number of complaints be regarded as evidence of success. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the health service changes are

hurting but certainly not working, and that, while he may sack the present Secretary of State for Health, he also needs to scrap the policies and start putting patients first?

The Prime Minister: The reforms are precisely about putting patients first. That is why the number of patients treated in hospital has grown by record amounts, the quality of care has improved immeasurably and the number of patients waiting, and almost all waiting times, have fallen. That is an improvement in care.
As for complaints, it was precisely with the aim of addressing the issues highlighted by the Health Service Commissioner that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established a committee, under Professor Wilson, to carry out a thorough review of complaints procedure. That report was published for consultation in May. We anticipated concern about the matter, and have already put in hand measures to deal with it.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that bed space is no longer the determinant of a nation's health care policy, and that when a nation has many beds that is likely to be because epidemiology is not the advanced science that it is in the United Kingdom today?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The proper judgment of how well the health service is performing is based, first, on the number of people who are treated and, secondly, on how satisfactorily they are treated. On both those measures, the health service continues to improve.

UN Security Council

Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed the membership, structure and functions of the Security Council of the United Nations when he last met the leaders of the other member states of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I did not discuss those matters when I last met European leaders in Corfu.

Dr. Godman: President Nelson Mandela said recently that Rwanda is a stern and severe rebuke to us all. That surely holds for the disgracefully inept and irresponsible Security Council. Does not the Prime Minister agree that there is an urgent need for the Council to solve the problems of financing and manning peacekeeping operations so that United Nations resolutions can more effectively and efficiently be implemented? Given the mess that the Security Council is in, financially and structurally, most UN resolutions are utterly unenforceable.

The Prime Minister: I share the horror and revulsion felt by many people, including the hon. Gentleman, about the terrible suffering in Rwanda. That is undoubtedly the case. I do not entirely share the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the Security Council. It is not practicable for the Security Council—it simply does not have the resources in terms of cash or money, nor is it likely to have in the short term—

Mr. Skinner: Cash or money?

The Prime Minister: It is not Britain that is behind in its payments to the UN. The hon. Gentleman, as usual, wishes to criticise this country, with a complete absence of the facts when he does so.
The Security Council has become increasingly effective over recent years, and many of the measures set down by it, many of the motions passed by it and many of the actions taken by it are far more effective than in previous years. It simply is not practicable for it to become the policeman of every part of the world.

Engagements

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sweeping reforms that we carried out in the national health service in 1991 have inevitably led to controversy and criticism, both malevolent and constructive and positive? Is he aware that, unlike the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who leads for the Opposition, I took the trouble to read the report of the health service ombudsman? I noted in particular paragraph 1, where he summarises the rest of the report, which I have also read, and refers to the number of complaints as being "remarkably small". Does my right hon. Friend agree that our reforms have been extremely successful, with more than 8 million people being treated in hospital this year? Will he join me in congratulating Portsmouth and South East Hampshire trust, which for the first time achieved the position whereby no one had to wait for more than a year for any operation?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear about that improvement in waiting lists and about the remarkably small number of complaints. I am interested to see that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not even get as far as the first paragraph in her studies. I share my hon. Friend's view that we have every reason to be proud of what the national health service has achieved. The Labour party takes and deserves the credit for having established the national health service—no one would deny it that—but in the 45 years since the health service

was established, the Conservative party has been predominantly in government, and that party has put in the resources to build up the health service from its early beginnings to its present excellence.

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Khabra: Does the Prime Minister think it odd that a senior adviser to the Home Office on prison policy is also in the pay of Group 4, which is bidding to win contracts for building private prisons? Furthermore, does he agree that it is odd that an interest is definitely involved?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the chief inspector of prisons has satisfied himself that there is no impropriety in that appointment and I am happy to accept that advice.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the public are concerned about people who commit crimes while out on bail? Will he strongly urge prosecutors to take up what we have given them—the right to appeal against bail being imposed on them?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the vast majority of the public will entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There is an opportunity there to be taken. I very much hope that it will be taken.

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Prime Minister simply confirm or deny the fact that a Cabinet Committee, which he chaired this morning, decided to recommend the closure of Rosyth naval base?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will have to wait, as far as any aspect of the defence costs study is concerned, for the Cabinet to consider the matter itself and for a statement subsequently to be made. Until that time, I have nothing to say either in confirmation or denial.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 11 JULY—Second Reading of the European Union (Accessions) Bill.
Motion relating to Scottish Standing Orders.
TUESDAY 12 JULY—Opposition Day (18th allotted day) There will be a debate on "The Case for a Public Post Office" on an Opposition motion.
Debate on Procedure Committee reports and Catering Committee reports.
WEDNESDAY 13 JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Accessions) Bill.
Debate on resolutions on Members' allowances and Members' interests.
THURSDAY 14 JULY—Motion on the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 15 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 18 JULY—Debate on the economy on a Government motion.
Motion on the Railways Pensions (Transfer and Miscellaneous Provisions) order.
At Ten o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the estimates and supplementary estimates for 1994–95. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Tuesday 12 July—document No. 11141/93 relating to consumer disputes. Wednesday 13 July—document No. 7390/92 relating to the development of the single market for postal services, and document No. 7133/93 relating to postal services.
[Tuesday 12 July:
European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 11141/93, Consumer Disputes. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 48-vi (1993–94), HC 48-xiv (1992–93 ), HC 48-xv (1993–94), HC 48-xxi (1993–94), HC 48-xxii (1993–94) and HC 48-xxiv (1993–94).
Debate on Procedure Committee Reports and Catering Committee Reports. Relevant Documents: The Procedure Committee Reports entitled "Printing of Private Members' Bills; Presentation of Private Members' Bills; and Timing of Divisions" (HC 880). The Catering Committee Reports entitled "Refreshment Provision for Line of Route Visitors" (HC 307) and "Refreshment Services for the House of Commons" (HC 75).
Wednesday 13 July:
European Standing Committee B—European Community documents: a) 7390/92 Postal Services, b) 7133/93 Postal Services. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: a) HC 79-vi (1992–93), HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93) b) HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93).
Debate on Resolutions on Members' Allowances and Members' Interests. Relevant Documents: The Report of Select Committee on Members' Interests entitled "Registration of Lloyd's Syndicates" (HC 353).
Monday 18 July:
Debate on the Economy. Relevant Document: "Summer Economic Forecast 1994".]
I was going to conclude by thanking the many hon. Members who have taken the trouble to keep me abreast of their family diaries for the forthcoming weeks and ask them to accept, by way of collective response, the announcement that it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Thursday 21 July until Monday 17 October.

Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, for the Opposition days, for finally telling us the date of the summer recess and, indeed, for granting us the summer economic debate, which I understand is intended to become a permanent part of the parliamentary calendar. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. May I have the attention of the House? I ask hon. Members to leave quickly and quietly.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry that deep divisions on the Conservative side over Europe have necessitated the last-minute rearrangement of business and important House of Commons matters having to be debated after Ten o'clock. I had hoped that in the new and more enlightened era which we hope the House is travelling towards, it would not be necessary to take business of that sort after Ten o'clock. Can the Leader of the House respond to that point?
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the House to have an opportunity to discuss the Consumers Association report on the post-privatisation profiteering of the water industry? In such a debate, we could discuss the massive salary gains that chief executives have made in the water industry and their share option schemes.
Lastly, will the Leader of the House arrange before the recess for a debate in Government time on the national health service, in particular on the role of medical advice in deciding whether frail, elderly patients are to be discharged from hospital? If it is the Government's view that those decisions should not be taken on a medical basis, but that other opinions should prevail, perhaps he could arrange for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, rather than the Secretary of State for Health, to reply to the debate.

Mr. Newton: Apart from the initial thanks, which I accept with gratitude, that was a pretty mischievous set of questions, to which largely I need make no substantial response. Manifestly, I am not in a position to promise a great range of further debates, as I have just announced the date of the summer recess to, I gather, some enthusiasm on both sides of the House.
I can confirm that the summer economic debate that I have announced for Monday week is intended to be a precursor of a regular debate at about this time in future years, following the move to the unified Budget. While House of Commons matters such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred have usually been debated late at


night, we should all like to move to a different position. That, of course, is the purpose of the discussions that he and I are having. We have made a great deal of progress towards the Jopling objectives in practice in recent months, but we shall not be able to achieve perfection until the hon. Gentleman and I can reach agreement.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from Conservative Members who were worried that we might have been bounced into one day on the accession treaty for enlargement?

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Cash: I certainly will speak for myself, and for many others. We believe that it is an important step forward that we can have a proper discussion on this important matter. After all, originally the European Parliament was merely to be in association with the proposals for enlargement. Now it is to be in participation.

Mr. Newton: Unaccustomed as I am to congratulations from that quarter, I accept them with gratitude. It was certainly never the intention to bounce anyone into anything. I hope that we have shown that, just as we always respond to representations through the usual channels, we are also capable of responding to representations through unusual channels.

Sir David Steel: The Leader of the House knows, of course, that the Foreign Secretary has been in Geneva attempting to assist with others the securing of a peace plan for Bosnia. He also knows that the carnage continues and the refugee problems are growing in Rwanda. Will he assure the House that there will be an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to report to the House on those matters before we rise for the summer recess so that we can press him on what has happened to the proposal for a rapid deployment force made to the Security Council by the Secretary-General of the United Nations some time ago? Such a force could have greatly helped, at any rate in the case of Rwanda.

Mr. Newton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have several times assured the House that if there were clearly a case for a statement to be made on developments in such matters, I would seek to arrange it. While I can give no undertakings at this moment, partly because I am not sure that at this moment there is a case for such a statement, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be here to answer questions next Wednesday.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay a warm and generous tribute to the outstanding work of the Select Committee on National Heritage, particularly for its report on the BBC? Will he give an assurance to the House that the White Paper on the BBC will be the subject of a full debate in the future?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that I would want to consider the request for a debate on the White Paper in due course at some appropriate time. I cannot give any undertaking at this moment and I certainly cannot do so before the recess. However, I note my hon. Friend's other remarks and I have

also noted the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the Select Committee in his remarks yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his statement? Now that there will be 88 days in which Parliament will not be in session, as a result of his announcement on the recess, will he take into account the fact that it is inconceivable, and would not be understood by people outside, especially the disabled, that there will not be the time to debate the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and allow it to reach its final stages? There are 6.5 million disabled people out there—people who believe that they have every right to the same justice and opportunities as other individuals in society. Surely it is possible to find one extra day. Cut that recess from 88 days to 87 and let us give those people a chance like everyone else.

Mr. Newton: There are two points really. First, as I have said on a number of occasions, the time available for private Members' Bills is determined by the House, under an order passed at the beginning of the Session. There is a further day for private Members' Bills, which I announced—Friday 15 July.
More important, I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend—indeed, many of my right hon. Friends, including myself—are working vigorously towards a substantial statement of the proposals that the Government think workable and practicable to advance the interests of disabled people in a number of areas.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend expect the House to complete consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill before, or after, the recess?

Mr. Newton: I would not wish to encourage expectation that we shall be able to complete consideration of that Bill, which is still in another place, before the recess.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House will know that in recent years, following reshuffles, some Ministers have taken senior positions on the boards of companies that were set up following the implementation of privatisation plans by their Departments. Can he give an assurance at the Dispatch Box next week that, when the next reshuffle takes place, no Minister who is in the Government will be allowed—for the rest of the life of this Parliament—to sit on the board of a company that he or she has been responsible for privatising during this Parliament?

Mr. Newton: I am obviously not going to get involved in any of the speculation underlying the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As to his question, I can safely assure him that all my colleagues—Ministers or otherwise—will always act in accordance with the guidance to Ministers and, indeed, considerations of general propriety.

Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate before we rise for the recess on the Christian values underpinning British society? Does he agree that such a debate would provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the Bishop of Birmingham the fact that increasing the resources and efficiency of the health service, and the number of patients treated by it, is a


profoundly Christian approach to that service, and contrasts sadly with the financial affairs of—and the numbers using—the Church of England?

Mr. Newton: Being ex officio a Church Commissioner, I had better be cautious about venturing into the latter part of the question. On the first part, yes, I certainly see our achievements in the health service, including those demonstrated by the figures that my right hon. Friend used at Prime Minister's Question Time, as illustrating a very caring approach, which is improving the amount of care that we offer through that service.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Should not there be a statement next week on the cross-ownership of the media? Do the Government think it right that Mr. Murdoch's pots of gold—acquired from television and in other ways—should be used to subsidise The Times and pose a threat to The Independent and The Daily Telegraph? Are the Government at least concerned that the quality press in this country may be in a very different position in 90 days or so? Ought there not to be an urgent statement on the Government's attitude to allowing a situation to develop in which Mr. Murdoch might have to choose between having television or broadsheet quality newspapers, which is the position in the United States?

Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman raises an important and controversial subject, on which he would not expect me to make a statement now. The matter is fairly and squarely in the territory of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. As it happens, my right hon. Friend was here yesterday on matters not totally distant from those raised by the hon. Gentleman, and he will be here to answer questions on Monday.

Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the outdated and ridiculous rule that Select Committees cannot travel during prorogation? Does he accept that, while the rule still exists, it is extremely difficult for Select Committees to plan any proposed travel? While I know that he will not want to tell us the date of prorogation, may we at least be told when the Queen's Speech and the opening of Parliament will be announced, as that must be decided many months in advance?

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position either to give the date of prorogation or the date of the Queen's Speech at the moment. My right hon. Friend's is the second representation which I have received about the position of Select Committees during the period between the two, and I am looking into the matter to see whether there is anything that I can do to help.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House consider that, a year or so after the "Taking Stock" announcement and with the Conservative party getting anything between 2 and 12 per cent. in Scottish elections, the minor procedural measures that are to be debated on Monday have been overtaken by events? Does he really consider that, with the Rosyth naval base set for closure, tinkering with the Scottish Grand Committee will save Tory skins in Scotland?

Mr. Newton: I do not in any way think that the proposals for changes in the Scottish Standing Orders,

which will be debated on Monday, have been overtaken by developments of any kind. They are a sensible improvement of the procedures of the House in relation to Scottish business, and I hope that the House will endorse them accordingly.

Sir Roger Moate: Can my right hon. Friend find a way during business next week for the House to consider early-day motion 1411?
[That this House recognises the importance of the fullest co-operation with the United States of America in matters of extradition; is concerned however that in the case of Sally Croft and Susan Hagan, the offence for which they have been charged is supposed to have taken place in Oregon in 1985, five years before the US Justice Department commenced proceedings in 1990; is further concerned that the supposed evidence was obtained entirely through plea-bargaining and is unreliable in a number of other respects; recognises that there are other exceptional features of this case; and therefore calls upon the present Home Secretary, in the interests of justice, to re-examine the case with a view to exercising his discretion to prevent the extradition of these two British subjects.]
The motion stands in my name and the names of 71 other hon. Members from both sides of the House. It concerns the imminent extradition of two British subjects to face rather bizarre charges in the United States.
If time cannot be found to debate the matter, will my right hon. Friend find some way of drawing it to the attention of the Home Secretary? After all, it is a matter of political judgment and discretion, and the concerns are shared on both sides of the House. Will my right hon. Friend to try to get the Home Secretary to re-examine the case, so that the two ladies are not extradited before the House has had time to consider the full implications?

Mr. Newton: I can safely assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the points that he and others have made. I understand that the cases are the subject of further judicial review proceedings which are due to be heard on 26 July. My hon. Friend will understand that I certainly cannot comment further.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Now that another reshuffle of Ministers seems to be on the way, may we have a statement next week about the latest reshuffle of ex-Ministers? Michael Fallon and Francis Maude have been appointed to the deregulation task force along with an administrator of the trust of the Sainsbury family, one of whose members is a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. Is not it absolutely deplorable that Ministers should use or abuse their patronage powers to set up a job creation scheme for their pals and former ministerial colleagues who were kicked out by the electorate at the general election?

Mr. Newton: I see nothing improper or in any way wrong in using the experience of people who, as it happens in this case, have been colleagues in the House and to make use of their experience to advance a sensible policy.

Mr. James Pawsey: My right hon. Friend will have noticed the considerable interest displayed during Prime Minister's Question Time on the report submitted by the health service ombudsman. Given that great interest, will my right hon. Friend therefore


consider having an early debate to discuss the reports of the Health Service Commissioner and the Parliamentary Commissioner?

Mr. Newton: I am conscious of my hon. Friend's role as Chairman of the Select Committee, and of his concern that there should be a debate. In the light of the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time, I perhaps have some further encouragement in that direction, but. I am afraid that I cannot at this stage give an undertaking.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman please assure the House that if the rail dispute is not settled before the House rises, we will have an opportunity to discuss the principles involved? On Tuesday, the chairman of Railtrack told the Employment Select Committee not only that the Government are 100 per cent. shareholders in Railtrack, but that the Secretary of State for Transport sets the parameters within which he must negotiate. In those circumstances, should the Secretary of State for Transport come not merely to the Employment Select Committee, as he will do next week, but to the House and answer to the entire country for the way in which the Government have caused the mishandling of this issue?

Mr. Newton: First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is frequently in the House. Secondly, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider how far it is right to use his position as Chairman of the Select Committee in relation to this kind of controversy when negotiations are going on.

Mr. Bob Dunn: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1442, which is in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and others, including myself?
[That this House notes with sadness the failure of the Church of England in Birmingham to attract more than two per cent. of the city's population to its churches on a Sunday and that the management of the Birmingham Diocese has failed to reverse the decline of the church in Birmingham inner city; regrets that the church has been marginalised at a time when its influence in spiritual and moral matters is sorely needed; and concludes that the Bishop of Birmingham's authority to speak out on public issues would be greatly enhanced if, instead of supervising decline, he was able to demonstrate that by saving more souls and filling more churches he had restored the Anglican Church in Birmingham to its rightful place as a leading influence in the day-to-day lives of the citizens of Birmingham.]
Would it be possible to have an urgent debate on this matter in the House soon, so that we can advise the Bishop of Birmingham on how best to be a bishop and to leave politics to people like us, who are elected to talk on the subject?

Mr. Newton: One of my hon. Friends has already referred to the bishop's remarks and I made some comment on that. Beyond that, as I have said on a number of earlier occasions, I would not wish to get involved too much in ecclesiastical affairs.

Mr. David Winnick: If we are to break up in the week mentioned by the Leader of the House, why are we not breaking up on 22 July, so that at least on 21 July we could have Question Time and Prime

Minister's Question Time? Is not it a fact that the Government are in such a sorry position that they simply do not want the newly elected Leader of the Opposition to be in a position to put questions? [Interruption.] No matter how much Tory Members heckle now, the public know how fearful the Government are of a newly elected Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Newton: In view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's complete dominance at Question Time, I can only say that if the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.

Mr. David Sumberg: May we have a debate next week on the workings of the legal aid system so that I can highlight the fact that a number of my constituents are having to pay a great deal of money back to the Legal Aid Board, while someone who is not even a British citizen is collecting more than £4 million to assist his case?

Mr. Newton: As it happens, I was asked a question about that, as my hon. Friend may recall, when I was answering for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday. I undertook to bring those concerns to the attention, once again, of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and that is being done.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on lack of accountability in the water industry? Does he agree that the need for such a debate was emphasised this week by the revelation that a prominent Conservative party supporter and former chair of Severn Trent Water has just received a pay-off of £500,000? Does he agree that that is a matter of legitimate public concern, particularly when pensioners and low-income families find it so difficult to pay their water bills? Does he agree that we urgently need a debate on the lack of accountability in our water industry?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that pay and other forms of remuneration in the private sector, whether in the water industry or elsewhere, are matters for those companies and their shareholders. It is certainly our view, however, that the shareholders of the water companies should follow the lead that the Government have set for the public sector and exercise restraint in agreeing remuneration in any form for their directors and senior managers.

Mr. James Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for an annual summer debate on the economy? This year, can my right hon. Friend think of an appropriate title for that debate, which might tempt the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to come to the House to explain his plans for improving the supply side of the economy? He could also explain how he reconciles those plans with the imposition of a minimum wage, imposition of the social chapter and the imposition of higher taxes on businesses as well as a massive hike in state spending. I can suggest a title that might fit the hon. Gentleman's plans; how about, " The white heat of technology—mark 2"?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend obviously has a good memory. He also has an irrepressible optimism because I


suspect that even if the hon. Member for Sedgefield took part in such a debate, we would get no clearer explanation inside the House than we have had outside it.

Mr. John Spellar: Will the Leader of the House accept that, given the considerable number of problems still to be discussed, the three months' recess will not be received with universal acclamation in the House or outside? May I draw his attention to the fact that the wheel clamping consultation was supposed to finish in May last year? Now it will not have an opportunity to be discussed further until October. Will he get on to the Home Office and try to get some urgency into that Department in order to resolve that disgraceful situation, as it is causing considerable misery around the country?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter again.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to discuss the single market and the impact that it is having on cheap beer imports into the country, which are running at 1 million pints a day? Last week, I went to Calais with other hon. Members and saw the amount of beer being imported, not just in Transits and ordinary cars but on HGV lorries. It is having a massive impact on the hundreds of thousands of jobs in pubs, clubs and the brewing industry in this country.

Mr. Newton: I believe that it will be within my hon. Friend's knowledge—I remember seeing details of a substantial court case during the week—that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are vigorously pursuing cases where importation is clearly outside the rules.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the new guidelines issued by the Charity Commission, which prevent charities from lobbying hon. Members in the traditional way by stopping them writing pro forma letters to us? While other organisations lobby for less worthy causes and offer hon. Members sumptuous invitations to junkets, Calais and other exotic spots, worthy organisations that support good causes are being restricted in that unfair way.

Mr. Newton: Well, of course I will bring those observations to my right hon. Friend's attention, but it must be recognised that, alongside the advantages of charitable status, there must be rules about what is and is not proper under charitable status.

Dr. Liam Fox: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on trade union and labour law reform? Given the transformation of our industrial relations landscape, with the timely reminder of the rail dispute, both sides of the House, particularly Opposition Front-Bench Members, would have a chance to say which part of the horrendous 1970 labour laws they would like to see revisited on the public.

Mr. Newton: I will certainly look for an opportunity to tease those matters out, but it is another area in which, however many questions are asked, we get few answers.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to make a

statement explaining what remedies local communities have when community health trusts issue consultation documents prior to the establishment of secure units for mental hospital patients, which are deliberately designed to mislead and deceive those local communities about the nature of offenders who will be held in those secure units?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman clearly has a particular case in mind and is effectively making an allegation of a public body "misleading" the public, his appropriate course would be to bring forward the evidence and ask my right hon. Friend to look at it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what the format of business will be on Wednesday 20 July? He will know that the tall ships race is to leave Weymouth harbour on that day, and many hon. Members with maritime and heritage interests or who just love seeing tall ships would love to be there between 11 am and 3 pm to see that wonderful sight, which is great for tourism, for Britain and, of course, for Dorset, and get back in good time to participate in the business of the House.

Mr. Newton: If, as my hon. Friend said, the race takes place between 11 am and 3 pm, he should at least be able to see the start of it and get back in time.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at the timetable for the House and consider having a debate on the space industry? There has not been a debate in the House on the UK space industry since February 1988; nor has there been a debate since the European Space Agency ministerial meeting last year, which made important decisions on space. As the European Space Agency will be present at Farnborough this year—the first time for 15 years—the matter needs to be discussed in the House because our UK industries believe that our levels of funding are falling below those necessary to make our industries successful and competitive.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may take this opportunity once again to recognise the excellent interest that my hon. Friend takes in those matters, which are perhaps not always as widely discussed as we should like. That said, I cannot promise a debate, but I could perhaps encourage her to seek to be fortunate, for example, Madam Speaker, as regards your choices about the Adjournment debates that will preface the recess.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on local government finance, so that the House might consider the position of the new Ealing Labour council, which is promising to increase council tax by about 10 per cent. next year, although it has inherited balances of £8 million from the outgoing Conservative administration, to which was bequeathed a deficit of £200 million by the previous Ealing Labour council?

Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot, I am afraid, promise a debate, but there are quite a lot of opportunities, what with the Adjournment motion itself and the Adjournment debates that normally come just before the recess, for such matters to be mentioned, and I might encourage my hon. Friend to try to elaborate those points on one of those occasions.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a


debate to debate the outcome of the preparatory arrangements for the international conference on population and development in Cairo later this year? If he cannot find time for such a debate now, may I urge him to find an early slot, so that we can debate the outcome of that conference?

Mr. Newton: As I suspect my hon. Friend knows, he is the second of my hon. Friends to mention that matter in two or three weeks. I did undertake, although very much without commitment, to consider that point, and I repeat that comment to my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on waste and inefficiency in the public sector? It would be a suitable opportunity for me to bring to the attention of the House matters of concern to my constituents, who are worried about some items of waste that still exist in the public sector, and they want me to make that argument so that the message can be communicated that the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal provides good value, is welcome in the constituency and they want it to be kept, and that they want many other wasteful items in the public sector to be abolished.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's concern for the Royal Marines School of Music at Deal is well known. I do not think that I need actually tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about it, but nevertheless I will.

Mr. Michael Bates: Has my right hon. Friend received any requests from the Labour party to have an early debate on early-day motion 527?
[That this House deplores the actions of certain honourable Members in claiming that there has been impropriety of various kinds by elected members of Monklands District Council; is particularly concerned that these allegations, including that of financial irregularity and political corruption, have now been made by the honourable Member for Eastwood who is the Minister of the Crown responsible for local government in Scotland; requires all honourable Members making such allegations

to furnish the facts to Strathclyde Police or other appropriate authority; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to cause a local enquiry to be undertaken in pursuance of the powers available to him under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and would regard failure to do so as indicating that there is no valid complaint against Monklands District Council and that the allegations amount to no more than a smear tactic which serves only to demean honourable Members and Ministers who stoop to such devices.]
The motion concludes that there was no case for Monklands district council to answer against claims of corruption. Given that there has been a Damascus road conversion of, not least, the convenor of the Scottish parliamentary Labour party, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), who now recognises that there is a case to answer, does not my right hon. Friend think that that matter should be mentioned at an early opportunity ?

Mr. Newton: I was rather anticipating that it might be mentioned at an early opportunity by the newly elected hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell).

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on deregulation, with special emphasis on the right of small business men to appeal against unnecessary and unwarranted impositions of regulations on them? During the passage through this House of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, we were assured by the Minister and by the President of the Board of Trade that we would get something put into the Bill before it arrived back here, and as yet nothing has happened. Can we find time for such a debate, to spur them on?

Mr. Newton: I might be in some difficulty if I found time for such a debate while the Bill is still under consideration in another place, but I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of those who are concerned with that consideration.

Development Board for Rural Wales

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning the Development Board for Rural Wales and related issues concerning the Welsh Development Agency, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Land Authority for Wales and the Wales tourist board.
Some non-departmental public bodies in Wales have been criticised in recent years by the Public Accounts Committee and by Parliament for the way in which they have conducted public business. Those bodies have revealed a number of irregularities that should not have occurred. I, for my part, have sought to be open about the problems, to report to the House and to take sensible action for a better future.
I announced to the House on 14 March a review of the future of the DBRW. I have since consulted widely and considered carefully the representations received. I have now reached my conclusions and wish to tell them to the House before anyone else. I have certainly not made any indication of my intentions to journalists before making today's statement.
The DBRW was established in 1977. Over the past decade, there has been significant improvement in the economy of mid Wales. Unemployment has fallen and is significantly lower than that for Wales as a whole. The number of jobs has increased by 19 per cent. over the 10 years to 1991, compared with only 1 per cent. for Great Britain. The number of employees in manufacturing has increased by 16 per cent. compared with a fall of nearly a quarter for Great Britain as a whole. More people now move into the region than move out of it. Nevertheless, there are still the special problems that affect some rural districts. Some young people do not think that there is enough opportunity, and leave. Jobs continue to be lost from farms. There is worry about the future vitality of some smaller towns, villages and hamlets.
In my review, I have been anxious to promote four broad principles. I believe that local authorities should be important in deciding local issues and meeting many of the public needs of their communities, that agencies should concentrate their activities in areas where they can make an effective and distinctive contribution to regeneration and where the market needs help. I believe that agencies should see themselves as servants, not as masters, working on behalf of central and local government, and that our policies should be fair to the different communities of the whole of rural Wales. I intend to apply those principles to the different functions of the DBRW.
The House knows that the housing stock of the board will transfer in 1996, when we have completed the arrangements. Tenants are being consulted on whether they would prefer to become tenants of a local authority or a housing association. I think that those new landlords could offer a better solution for all involved.
The board makes a number of social and economic grants to local authorities and others, which are highly valued in the localities. I wish local authorities to have direct control over how that money is spent. I therefore intend from next year to transfer that responsibility to the

local authorities involved. My current plan is to transfer £2.4 million—the present level of expenditure—but I wish to consult on that and on the best mechanism.
The DBRW and the Welsh Development Agency offer a range of grants to assist investment in the region by existing and new businesses. I believe that those functions, which deal mainly with very small businesses, could be better delivered by local authorities. The schemes that I have in mind would include the mid Wales development grant, rural buildings conversion grants, DRIVE grants and community enterprise projects. A total of £3 million is involved. I have also instructed my officials to discuss with the local authority associations the details of how to route money to the local authorities for those activities.
The board contributes to tourism marketing and development in mid Wales. The Wales tourist board has an all-Wales responsibility in that sector and, from 1995–96, it will take over the DBRW's tourism activities and expand its own marketing and other operations in the area by an amount equivalent to the DBRW's spend of £500,000.
Housing apart, the main amounts of money and the central tasks of the DBRW are in the spheres of property development and business services. Both are designed to help small and medium-sized businesses grow and to work with inward investors once they have decided on Wales for their commitment. There is a case for those activities to be done by the WDA everywhere. During consultation, I discovered that opinion was divided, but there is, naturally, considerable support in the DBRW district for the continuation of its special work. A total of £14 million is involved.
I have, therefore, decided that those main tasks will remain with the DBRW. Within this framework, the board's property development activities—making available serviced sites and premises for existing and new businesses in the area—will continue to form an important part of its role. Financial support for these operations will be fully maintained. I expect the board to liaise closely with the Welsh Development Agency, particularly to ensure a well co-ordinated approach to opportunities and developments along their respective boundaries.
In order to do this, I propose changes to the DBRW board which I hope the House will welcome. In order to ensure more co-ordination of effort between the WDA and DBRW, which many think desirable, I am appointing today Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe as the new chairman of the DBRW.
Because I wish to strengthen working between the DBRW and local authorities, I propose to appoint two extra councillors to the board, making a total of five. This will take the board to its permitted maximum of 13. I wish to see each of the five constituent historic shires represented at the earliest opportunity.
I do not think it helps Wales to be represented abroad by more than one agency with more than one story, or by a multitude of local authorities each vying with the other. There is a danger of losing the main message that "it is better made in Wales". While I normally favour competition, this is one case where concentration of effort and one song from one song sheet is better. The WDA will take a strong lead in this work.
The board will also continue its research and marketing activities in the United Kingdom, promoting its own services and the facilities available in the area. As now, the


DBRW will continue its support of the WDA in responding to the needs of potential inward investors in the area.
The board has long had an influential role in arranging provision of a wide range of services and advice to local businesses, especially small firms, through a strong network of business centres. These are run in conjunction with local authorities, training and enterprise councils and local enterprise agencies. I have recently issued a prospectus inviting proposals by the autumn for the co-ordination of business services in Wales. I expect the board, together with its partners, to be fully involved in responding to this invitation. I want a good-quality service to continue for the business community in mid Wales.
I have been impressed by the way Mr. Rowe-Beddoe and his new team have gone about honestly unearthing irregularities from the past at the WDA. We are all sad that there were any. We should now unite in wishing to see the good work of the WDA and DBRW continue.
Doubts have been raised about past land deals by the WDA in the Cynon valley. At my request, the new team at the agency has launched an inquiry. Doubts have been raised about the propriety of ministerial actions in approving certain loan and grant schemes. I can assure the House from the evidence I have seen that there is no question of Ministers setting out to break the law. I do not wish there to be any doubts about any scheme; I wish to ensure that there are no doubts about the way we proceed. My arrangements ensure that these schemes will in future be run by local authorities, which I hope the House will welcome, as I do, for the wider benefits that that will bring.
It will be for the new chairman and the board to assess the effects of my statement today and its impact on the board's running costs. I would hope that changes in employment will be achieved through natural wastage or voluntary redundancy, but I would obviously expect the overhead to reduce.
I believe that there is a role for non-departmental public bodies; but I want to see that role very clearly defined. I do not expect them to ignore the wishes of local authorities and local communities. I do expect them to work wherever possible in harmony and co-operation. I do not want them to become large property landlords. I have asked the development agencies and the Land Authority for Wales to dispose of fully let properties where the money can be reused for new projects, and of land holdings which can be used for economic development and housing.
The Cardiff Bay development corporation has now begun work on its major project: the construction of the barrage. This should be completed by 1998. All development corporations have finite lives. I expect that it will be possible to wind up the Cardiff Bay development corporation by the end of 1999, at which time responsibility for the further development of the area will pass back to the local authorities.
There is no reduction in my commitment to the well-being and regeneration of mid Wales or the rest of the country. Opposition Members should welcome the very positive message that I am sending today to local government in Wales—to play its part in promoting and assisting enterprise in Wales. I believe that with these arrangements, which will ensure the same level of funding for rural Wales, we will attract more business from abroad, reclaim more derelict land and help many more indigenous businesses to set up and expand. I commend these proposals to the House.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: May I first apologise to the House and to you, Madam Speaker, for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for my presence, which is due to the pressing domestic personal difficulties of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, which I have explained to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State opened his remarks this afternoon by referring to the irregularities among quangos in Wales, but there was a certain amount of confusion in his statement as to whether he is shrinking the mid Wales development board back to its core functions because it is an economic success or because of its compliance and accountancy failures.
The confusion continues in respect of the transfer of grant-making powers to local authorities. If the Secretary of State is interested in clearing up the legal difficulties that were raised with him in early May by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who did not receive a substantive reply for more than six weeks, it is a matter of some concern that he is now attempting to transfer that grant-making power to local authorities with the legal difficulties still unresolved. Can he, therefore, tell the House whether he plans primary legislation to clear up the unresolved difficulties that have occurred—probably over the past 12 years—particularly in respect of the legalities of making the mid Wales development grant? Before he transfers the grant-making power to the local authorities, will he confirm that he will ensure that there are no legal doubts about the powers to pay that grant?
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned contempt of the House by way of briefing the press on the matter two days ago. I accept his statement today, but is it not a contempt of the House that the Welsh Office suspended payment of those grants by a letter to the Development Board for Rural Wales three weeks ago? Officials had been instructed to cease payments of the mid Wales development grant, the DRIVE grant and the conversion grants before the House had had any chance to discuss the scheme. That raises a question of contempt of the House which I hope the Secretary of State will answer.
There is some confusion in the Secretary of State's mind about whether he is penalising the Development Board for Rural Wales by truncating it because of its financing irregularities, thereby causing it to be taken over in part by the WDA by merging it at chairman level. Will Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe—fine figure though he is—be earning two salaries as chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales and of the Welsh Development Agency?
As the Secretary of State referred to job losses, albeit achieved by voluntary methods possibly, what job losses does he anticipate will occur? Most important of all, is it really his intention in truncating the Development Board for Rural Wales that it should then wither on the vine, or does he intend it to have a stable function? Is it is not true that, in splitting the grant-making power from the business services, property development and factory letting power of the Development Board for Rural Wales—handing one to the local authorities and causing the core Development Board for Rural Wales to keep the others—business people thinking of moving into mid Wales will become extremely confused? Is that really his intention? If he means to penalise the Development Board for Rural Wales for being a bit naughty, is that not the equivalent of finding that Beethoven was drunk on the night he wrote the Emperor


concerto and, instead of telling him to stop drinking, telling him that he should never write a note of music again? The Secretary of State should be able to tell the House whether his real intention is that there should be a stable future for the Development Board for Rural Wales.
Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's wider remarks about quangos in Wales, we want to know in what direction he is seeking to move them. Is he democratising them and, if so, what about the education quangos and the housing quangos which have taken over from local authorities? Is he to return those education, housing and urban regeneration powers to the local authorities from which they have been progressively taken over the past 15 years?
Finally, the Secretary of State will be about as popular in mid Wales as a rugby league scout in a valleys rugby club, and, what is more, one who left his cheque book back in Wigan.

Mr. Redwood: I think that those remarks were prepared before the hon. Gentleman saw my statement. The proposals will be welcome in mid Wales. The councillors will be delighted and local people will be delighted that their elected representatives will be involved in some of the decisions and that the important work of the board will continue.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's main question is easy. My prime reason for making the changes was that I wanted to review the body well before any legal doubts arose because I wished to develop the policies in a new direction. I have set out those principles clearly today and those are the principles which I had in my mind at the beginning of the review and which I have now made plain to the House.
I have no plans for primary legislation to deal with what the hon. Gentleman thinks are legal difficulties. Of course I will ensure that, in working out the scheme with local authorities, they have clear powers under legislation so that they can grant the moneys. That is essential. I do not wish them to get into any difficulties over legal doubts. We wish to ensure that all schemes are soundly based, and of course I shall take proper legal advice in establishing the schemes so that they are soundly based.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Mr. Rowe-Beddoe will receive two salaries. He will be paid for the time that he works for the WDA and for the DBRW. He will receive a salary for each body which reflects the time that he works. When I have finalised the arrangements with him, I will ensure that I tell the hon. Gentleman the details in so far as it is proper for me to do so.
The hon. Gentleman should know that I expect Mr. Rowe-Beddoe to put in a reasonable number of hours for both bodies and it would be unreasonable not to remunerate him for doing that. He will be remunerated at the usual scale and there is no question of his working more than a normal week. With his great skill, he can do the job for both with an executive team supporting him who will, of course, carry out most of the day-to-day work.
The hon. Gentleman seemed at one point in his speech to be objecting to local authorities having such involvement. I had better disabuse the hon. Gentleman of that notion. They are already deeply involved because, for example, they happen to be the bodies that grant planning permission for many important projects. It does not add

another complexity to have the local authorities involved, but I think that they will welcome having more involvement in the process, particularly with small businesses, which they know and should be able to assist in their areas in the proper way.
As to the general question of what directions I wish to set for the bodies in general, my statement today is primarily about the DBRW. I have ranged over several other bodies involved in economic development. I have made clear my principles and the way in which I wish those bodies to go. It is a way that Opposition Members should welcome, and the absence of any really good questions from them shows that they do in practice welcome it and that they are rather surprised by the direction in which the DBRW is going.

Mr. Rod Richards: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today announcing the rationalisation of some of the functions of the DBRW, the WDA, the tourist board and local authorities which, as he has said, will lead to lower administrative costs. I also congratulate him on leaving the well-known windbag, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), with nothing to say. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposed headquarters of the WDA in St. Asaph business park in my constituency in north Wales will go ahead as planned?

Mr. Redwood: I have no announcement to make today on any changes, but I shall talk to the new chairman of the DBRW about his requirements both for the WDA and the DBRW and I will make sure that my hon. Friend's strong interest in the matter is known. Mr. Rowe-Beddoe will obviously see the exchanges.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State dispel the ever-increasing impression that mid Wales is a distant country of which he knows little by telling the House, first, how many of the 126 employees of the DBRW in my constituency he expects to remain employed in the public sector and in the DBRW and, secondly, why he believes that the handing over of the mid Wales development grant and the social grants to local authorities will improve the already high quality of delivery of those grants?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how on earth he can ensure that the Cardiff-based chairman of the WDA can exercise an independent role as chairman of an independent DBRW when inevitably there will be conflicting competitive interests?
Fourthly, will the Secretary of State answer the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the DBRW to wither on the vine, or is telling the House with his usual confidence that the board can be foreseen to have a long-term and important future in the economic generation of rural mid Wales?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. and learned Gentleman's first remarks did not do him credit. I know mid Wales extremely well. I visit it and talk to people there frequently, and a great deal of information comes into my office by virtue of the post that I hold. The employees' future is a matter for the chairman and the board to settle with the employees. I made it clear in my statement that I do not favour compulsory redundancies and do not believe that there should be any need for them.

Mr. Carlile: How many?

Mr. Redwood: I cannot say how many employees will be there in one or two years. I am asking the new chairman and the board to review that aspect in the light of the policy that I announced. I have not gone around Wales telling people about the policy before informing the House. Now is the time to work out the details by asking the people concerned—the chairman and the board—to say how many staff they need to perform certain functions, and how other functions that are best transferred to local authorities can be performed.
I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do down local authorities in his area. When he returns there, he will find that local authorities welcome my announcement. I am sure that they will work closely with the board and the Welsh Office to ensure a smooth transfer of functions and duties for next year, when the system will be fully up and running.
I believe that Mr. Rowe-Beddoe, in chairing the two bodies, will be entirely fair in his dealings with rural and urban Wales. As chairman of the WDA, he already makes decisions about areas of Wales most eligible for projects that he is winning in his role as one of the Principality's principal salesmen abroad, in attracting inward investment. Many hon. Members who represent areas of Wales not covered by the DBRW will be reassured to know that there will be fair judgments between different parts of Wales and parts of rural Wales—some already covered by the WDA and some by the DBRW, where there are sometimes boundary issues between the two.
I have announced my DBRW policy. The question about withering on the vine was foolish, because I made a clear statement on the board's purposes and functions. That is where the matter rests.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the churlish remarks of the Opposition, his statement will receive a warm welcome in many parts of mid Wales—not least in my own constituency? Representations that I made to my right hon. Friend were geared to the idea that social development and other grants ought to be transferred to local authorities. Does not my right hon. Friend think it remarkable that there is so much objection from Opposition Members to local authorities and democratically elected councillors having more say?
As to my right hon. Friend's proposals for the development board's property assets, he will know that when that issue arose recently, I requested that if assets were to be disposed of, it should be done at market value to sitting tenants. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that will remain the board's policy?

Mr. Redwood: Yes, of course I favour sitting tenants having a fair opportunity to buy their properties at a sensible price. I wish to encourage that policy. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He has read the mood of mid Wales correctly, in a way that Opposition Members have not. Like him, I am astounded at Labour's performance. We are always hearing from Labour that we do not give enough to, or believe enough in, local government. When I offer local government something, Labour Members say, "Don't give it to local government—it can't do the job."

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Secretary of State mentioned the unearthing of past irregularities in the WDA. Will he confirm whether any more are to come into the public domain, or do we know about them all—including the land deal to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Am I to understand from an earlier answer that the Secretary of State can do all that he proposes by administrative fiat and that legislation is not required?

Mr. Redwood: My advice is that more than adequate powers exist among different public sector bodies, including local authorities, to do what is required. When we complete the detail, I will make clear how that is being done. As to irregularities, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that he seeks and that I should like to give. I can never be sure that all past irregularities have been found, but I hope that they have. I have asked people to search extremely assiduously so that I can inform the House. If any further irregularities come to light, I will report them as soon as I know of them. I have reported those that I know about.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: May I say how much I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? I am particularly pleased that my constituents will be given an opportunity to purchase their own properties, but I also welcome the transfer of grant-making powers to local authorities. I find it strange that Opposition Members have not been more welcoming, given the number of times that some of them have accused the Government of having centralising tendencies. Here we have an example of their transferring powers to local authorities: surely Opposition Members should welcome that, as I do.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that he is quite right, and I am delighted that he agrees with my policy.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about an inquiry into past land deals engaged in by the WDA in Cynon valley. There have been many rumours, and it is time that they were laid to rest. What will be the terms of reference for the inquiry, and can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that its results will be published in full? Nothing less will satisfy my constituents.

Mr. Redwood: I have asked the chairman to satisfy himself about what happened in the land transactions, with the commissioning of an independent investigation. I shall want to know from him what he subsequently discovers, and I shall tell the House either way—that is, I shall tell the House if nothing improper has come to light, or if something improper has come to light. In the latter event, action will be needed.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Secretary of State noticed that no Opposition Member has objected to the increase in the number of democratically elected representatives? On the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman, however, seems to be so devoted to yah-boo politics that he cannot resist giving his "boo" when we have not given our "yah".
It is some comfort to Opposition Members to know that at least the Government have started to cleanse the stables that they themselves have fouled, but would it not have been better if the Secretary of State had appointed as


chairman someone who was respected in Wales as a non-political figure rather than a card-carrying member of the Conservative party who earned his living by collecting money for the party in a tax haven abroad? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman put across his sincerity in trying to cleanse the stables further by appointing more democratically elected members and genuinely independent chairpersons?

Mr. Redwood: I am suggesting the appointment of the maximum possible number of democratically elected people within the maximum permitted number of directors on the board. It so happens that that would take the number to five, which I think is a good number because it is the number of historic shires in the area concerned.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has at last welcomed the proposals. However, I have listened carefully to all the comments that have been made, and no Opposition Member had said anything kind about them until he made his point.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe, I found them very disappointing. Mr. Rowe-Beddoe has developed a great reputation in Wales for the straightness of his dealing, his enthusiasm for the task and his considerable business skills, which were the reason for his appointment. I know that he is always happy to meet Opposition Members as well as Conservative Members so that he can understand their concerns and ensure that he does a good job for all parts of Wales.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State stressed that the policies were relevant to the whole of rural Wales; he then referred to the transfer of social and economic grant-making powers to local authorities. He also said that that would be the responsibility of the local authorities concerned. Can he clarify the position of parts of rural Wales that are outside the DBRW area but are none the less rural? Will local authorities in those areas have the social and economic grant-making powers to which he refers?

Mr. Redwood: I believe that they have the powers. Money may be the issue, which I shall consider in the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments. The intention is to make social grants under existing local authority powers. As I explained, I shall consult on that and report to the House when I have had a clear answer on the best way of making payments. Of course, I wish to ensure that all parts of rural Wales have access to fair treatment both under a grant scheme and any other scheme that we may develop. For example, it may be possible to develop the strategic development scheme, which is already of great benefit to many parts of Wales.

Mr. Peter Hain: The Secretary of State said that he would transfer current spending of, I think, £2.4 million to local authorities. Will he confirm that that excludes overheads and administrative and managerial costs, which therefore will fall as additional costs on local authorities? Will that money be ring-fenced by way of allocation to local authorities, or will they have to carry the cost from their broader finances, as has happened on many previous occasions, of which community care is a classic and disturbing example?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman makes two good points. I want my officials to discuss such points with local

authority associations and representatives so that we can reach a fair solution to the transfer and handling of these grants. We have a little time in which to do so, because I propose that the changes should apply from the next financial year.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Secretary of State say something about the future funding of the Welsh Development Agency and the DBRW? At present, a large fraction of their expenditure results from the sale of property, which will continue for only two or three more years. What will happen in 1996–97, when there will be a black hole in future funding?

Mr. Redwood: Some time ago, I set out to Parliament in the general expenditure figures what the position will be, and I do not propose to change those figures today. They will be reviewed in the normal way in the autumn for subsequent years. I do not accept the gloomy analysis that there will be a great black hole after three years. Opposition Members forget that the agencies are not only selling completed properties, thereby gaining moneys from those sales, but are creating new assets. They will not suddenly run out of assets. The idea is that they should not become great land owners and property holders but should be interested in new business and development, reusing the money time and again.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State said earlier that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) had read the mood of the people of mid Wales. I obviously did not read the mood of the Western Mail yesterday. The Secretary of State said that I would probably be negative about his proposals, but I welcome some aspects of his statement. I appreciate the extension of the role of local government, which was debated during discussions of the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
I should like to raise one or two small points for clarification. First, I take it that the smaller grant approach will still apply under the new system, because there is a difference almost in culture between the WDA and DBRW. Smaller ventures in mid Wales are important. Secondly, will the Minister confirm that EC grant funding will be available under the new set-up? I presume that it will be, but such funding is vital. I echo other hon. Members' comments: I expect that the DBRW will retain a strong presence in mid Wales, where its headquarters will remain.
On a small but technically important point, the Secretary of State is aware of my concern about rack rents and the letting of units. I wrote to him about that, and in reply he said that he would consider it. Will he in due course, please, forward instructions to the new body about high rents, which in the past have dissuaded people from taking units?

Mr. Redwood: I certainly want the rents to be sensible so that we can fill the space because we want the businesses. Rents should be at market levels so that we can let the space. I have always made that clear to the development bodies; that is the policy that I am asking them to follow. We must continue grants for smaller ventures. They are important to mid Wales, where the scale of most enterprises is smaller than in the more industrial


south. I do not think that it will in any way trouble the EC grants regime. That is not the intention; I want that to carry on.
I have already answered the point about office accommodation and headquarters. I am not announcing any changes today. I will listen to what the new chairman has to say. I do not visualise any major changes at the moment, but I will listen to what he suggests.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Secretary of State accept that his announcement will be greeted with some disappointment in those areas of rural Wales which are not currently covered by the DBRW? A opportunity that has been missed, especially in Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, parts of Clwyd, parts of Gwynedd, and even in those areas that were formerly part of the south Wales industrial heritage which, sadly, are now becoming rural areas. A great opportunity has been missed for giving the social remit—which, as it would appear from the statement, is continuing in one form or another by local authorities—to rural areas to be exercised by the WDA in the rest of rural Wales. Will the Secretary of State reconsider that point while he is reconsidering other details? If that is changed, I suggest that there will be a great welcome in some of the hillsides of Wales that are not currently covered by the social remit.

Mr. Redwood: I am pleased to look at what can be achieved under existing local authority and national government powers in the way I have described. We will now consult with local authorities and, of course, I will reflect carefully on what hon. Members have suggested during today's exchanges.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Secretary of State return to the legal dubiousness of spending the money in the way in which it was spent throughout the 1980s? In 1982, the WDA advised the Welsh Office that it was illegal to spend the money in the way that it was being directed. How does the Secretary of State intend to clarify that position? It is extremely important that mid Wales lost grant status according to DTI criteria and the money was redirected through the WDA into mid Wales.
We have yet to find out—and other hon. Members have asked this question in other ways—how the Welsh Office will justify, through economic criteria, as the DTI justified, giving grants to certain parts of Wales but denying grants to other parts of Wales which may be just as deserving or

even more deserving. How will you justify that? How will you clear up the legal minefield in which the Welsh Office has got you?

Mr. Alex Carlile: Madam Speaker?

Mr. Redwood: Madam Speaker—I will do that bit for the hon. Gentleman as well—he is right. There have been doubts cast on the legal base. Some of those doubts apply to the loan scheme set up by the Labour Government in February 1979 and similar ones apply to the 1982 scheme, in which the hon. Gentleman is obviously interested. I have made it clear to the House that I have proposals here which I think can be done without any doubt at all. I think that that is the best way forward because I do not like recommending to the House things about which doubts can be voiced.

BILL PRESENTED

CHILDREN ACT 1989 (PROHIBITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) AMENDMENT

Miss Joan Lestor, supported by Mr. Clive Soley, Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Malcolm Wicks, presented a Bill to amend the Children Act 1989 so as to ensure that corporal punishment is not used in childminding and daycare for young children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

SUMMER TIME

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

That the draft Summer Time Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—,[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 96 (Scottish Estimates),
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class XIV
Vote 1
Agricultural support, Scotland.


Class XIV
Vote 2
Agricultural services, agricultural grants and fisheries, Scotland.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Opposition Day

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Housing in Wales

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move,
That this House records its concern at the continuing high level of unmet need for social housing in Wales; recognises that adequate provision of rented homes at affordable rents is a fundamental necessity; is opposed to any intention to reduce the proportion of the Tai Cymru budget dedicated to providing rented properties or to reduce the level of Housing Association Grant; calls for the restoration of a financial regime which would make the purchase and renovation of existing properties by both local councils and housing associations economically feasible; and demands the establishment of a Parliament for Wales with legislative and revenue-raising powers that would enable the people of Wales to implement housing policies appropriate to their specific needs and priorities.
It had been my intention to speak in last Wednesday's debate on housing initiated by the Labour party, but on the morning of the debate I found that it was to be specifically about England, so I could not speak about Wales in that context. When Plaid Cymru was offered a supply day this Thursday, I decided to take the opportunity to have a debate on housing in Wales. It is a vital issue at present, as I shall try to show. I want to show that at least one party in Wales is concerned about this topic.
I shall show the extent of the continuing problem with regard to housing in Wales, and I shall show that Government policy is, by and large, in disarray. There is a danger of foisting on Wales approaches already pursued in England which would be entirely inappropriate and damaging here. I am not for one moment saying that they are appropriate in England either.
It is true that Tai Cymru hopes that housing associations will provide more than 4,000 units of social housing in 1994. That sounds substantial, but it means that we would return to the level of provision that we had in 1980 after a long period of under-provision. Nevertheless, it is important to congratulate the housing association movement of Wales on its ability to respond to the challenge of providing social housing and delivering that substantial number. I was associated with that movement for more than 10 years.
The figure of 4,000 needs to be set in the context of a number of issues that I shall raise. First, there has been an enormous increase in homelessness in Wales over the past decade. It is a serious problem. The number has increased by 84 per cent., with 10,270 households accepted as homeless in 1992—the highest number ever. The Shelter report, which is quoted in the Western Mail today, shows that the position is not getting better; it is getting worse.

Mr. Rod Richards: The hon. Gentleman quoted the number of homeless households in Wales as being in the order of 10,000. The figure that I have for 1992 is 7,345. My source is Welsh housing statistics. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House his source?

Mr. Dafis: My source is Shelter, which has access to similar sources to the hon. Gentleman. Even if his figure is right, it is a serious problem.
Over the past decade, there has been an increase of 121 per cent. in the number of homeless families housed in temporary accommodation. There is a particular problem with regard to young people. It is estimated that between 7,500 and 10,000 young people experience homelessness in some form every year. That is an astonishing figure.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem among young people includes a very large number of young people who simply are not in a position to buy accommodation? Whatever the Secretary of State's proposals to make it possible for more people to buy accommodation—welcome though they may be—there will still be a large residue of homeless young people who need houses to rent which are not being built.

Mr. Dafis: That is a crucial point, and it will be the main thrust of my remarks. However welcome proposals to facilitate owner-occupation may be, that approach cannot satisfy the needs especially of young people.
Another unsatisfactory aspect is the special circumstances in Wales with regard to the condition of housing. In Wales, 36.8 per cent. of the housing stock was built before 1919, compared with 26.6 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. That is a significantly higher level. In certain industrial areas—for example, the Cynon Valley, about which I made some inquiries over the past week—more than 50 per cent. of the housing stock predates 1919. Much of that housing stock is inhabited by pensioners. As a result of the industrial legacy of that part of Wales, a high proportion of them suffer from varying degrees of disability. That means that we have disabled, elderly people living in antiquated houses which are seriously in need of repair.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: We know that the population of the Cynon Valley area has fallen recently and there has been additional housing provision. With that background, how would the hon. Gentleman explain the increase in homelessness to which he referred?

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I did not refer to the Cynon Valley specifically in relation to homelessness. I was talking about the condition of the housing stock. A high proportion of the residents of that housing stock are elderly people who suffer a disability. They live in old property that badly needs renovation. Of those old properties, 9 per cent. apparently still lack or have to share a bath, shower or WC. They are still inadequately insulated. I am told that it is pretty well impossible for anyone who is not on benefit to obtain an insulation grant. The grant is entirely for people on housing benefit and some of those elderly people have a small pit pension which makes them ineligible for benefit.
To people living in old property badly in need of renovation, the effect of the imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel is particularly damaging. It is not too much to say that that represents a serious threat to the health and certainly to the welfare of many elderly people in such housing conditions. It is worth pointing out that there is a downside to owner-occupation among low-income families. The vast majority of the houses in


question are owner-occupied: 42 per cent. of all owner-occupied houses in Wales are in significant need of repair.
The Government will say that they are tackling the problem through the renovation grant system. Let us examine that system, which is in serious disarray. A tremendous amount of good work has been done and large sums of money have been poured into the renovation of existing sub-standard property. It is worth saying at this juncture that sometimes demolition and rebuild might be a more cost-effective option and we need to explore that.
Substantial sums of money have been spent on renovation of existing old property, but the whole thing has been badly handled. Hon. Members will remember the open cheque book system that applied for the first year or two of the system. While the open cheque book applied, there was no problem. The money was available and the work could go ahead apace. However, there was an enormous expansion in demand without the funds to meet it. The open cheque book system came to an end. Councils found that they must either break the body of law on mandatory grants or break the body of law on control of local government expenditure. I can quote an example from the ombudsman's report. Councils were legally obliged to make mandatory grants for renovation, but simply did not have the funds to do so. That has led to a great deal of frustration and delay, of which we are all aware from our constituency mail.
In the south Wales valleys, the waiting period for a renovation grant is eight years in Cynon, 10 years in Merthyr and nine years in Rhondda. The Welsh Office has responded by attempting to make the funds more quickly available by reducing the maximum grant level to 24 per cent. However, that will mean that many of the least well-off in the poorest properties which need the greatest sums for renovation will be unable to undertake the improvements. That is not satisfactory targeting, of which the Government are very much in favour.
Renovation is a good idea for environmental reasons because we wish to avoid developing green-field sites. It is a good idea for social reasons because there is often social cohesion in areas of existing property and because it avoids the costs of providing new infrastructure. So renovation of existing property is a good idea, although on the surface it is the more expensive option.
It is regrettable—everyone in the housing association movement in Wales agrees with this—that nowadays housing associations are simply unable to purchase and renovate. The Secretary of State for the Environment recently said that he wished to see housing associations return to purchasing existing property and, in that way, restoring the quality of life in well-established areas.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the key issue is a fiscal one? VAT is chargeable on renovation and makes the cost that much higher. Presumably the judgment ultimately involves sweeping away VAT.

Mr. Dafis: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman might have read my next sentence. The decision to impose VAT on renovation and to differentiate between it and new build is a Government decision. It needs to be reconsidered. It is not in the gift of Tai Cymru or even of the Welsh Office. It is in the gift of the Government.
VAT is not the only factor. Tai Cymru's acceptable cost

guidelines do not recognise that other extra costs besides VAT are associated with the option of renovation. There are extra maintenance costs. In my experience, major repairs which involve considerable cost frequently have to be done to renovate a property.
We need to look afresh at creating a financial regime which will enable housing associations to undertake renovation work and, because renovation may not always be the best option, to consider how to purchase and demolish and new build on existing sites. I know of several instances of housing that has been expensively refurbished and could have been more cost-effectively replaced by new building on the existing site. We need to consider ways in which that could be made feasible where a property has reached the end of its useful life. All properties reach that stage at some time. Housing associations and councils are better equipped to undertake such tasks than many owner-occupiers. They are certainly far better equipped to do so than private developers and landlords.
The question of rents is a vexed one. Since the introduction in 1989 of the new mixed funding regime, housing association grant—HAG, as it is called—as a percentage of the total cost of providing new units has been pushed down. It currently stands at 62 per cent. The result is that rents have been pushed inexorably upwards. The Government argue that housing subsidies should be targeted through housing benefit rather than to bricks and mortar. That is the Government's rationale. It sounds plausible enough on the surface, but it, too, has a serious downside, which is increasingly recognised throughout the housing movement and the world of housing expertise.
Housing associations are already worried that only those who are in receipt of housing benefit can afford to take their property. That is becoming the case. It means in turn that people just above the benefit level, but still low paid, hard-up and unable to enter the open market for purchasing a house find it difficult to obtain housing. It also means that the poverty trap leads to a disincentive to unemployed benefit recipients in such properties to take employment. The poverty trap is a well-known phenomenon and it applies particularly where rents are high. It means in turn that housing association estates tend to have a high percentage of benefit-dependent unemployed people. That brings social problems.
It also has to be said that housing associations often do not have the resources or experience to provide the special management skills such as counselling or, in some cases, enforcement. They do not have the capacity or resources to tackle such problems. That is what tends to happen where the cost per unit dominates policy. There is a strong feeling in the housing association movement that cost per unit has constantly driven development.
The rent situation is already harsh with HAG at its present level—42 per cent. of housing association tenants pay 25 per cent. or more of their income in rent. That is approaching serious unaffordability. It is a harsh regime for those who have to pay rent and it is socially problematic for the reasons that I mentioned.
If the Government proceed with their proposal to reduce HAG from its present 62 per cent. to 55 per cent. by 1997, rent levels will become intolerable. The situation could even become inflammable. People will be annoyed and worried to the point of desperation, if rent levels rise in that way. City analysts UBS have calculated that rents would rise by 34 per cent. in those circumstances, and that 83 per cent. of tenants would be paying unaffordable rents, which


depends on how one defines unaffordable. The Government refused to present an affordability index at the time of the Housing Act 1988, even though the housing association movement pressed them to do so.
On the whole, the housing association movement believes that affordable rents are between 20 and 25 per cent.—certainly less than 25 per cent. The Government seem to be thinking of an affordability index of about 35 per cent. It is a very serious matter.
If HAG is reduced to 55 per cent, there will not merely be a problem with rents. Most housing associations in Wales would find it impossible to raise the remaining 45 per cent. from banks and building societies and we must attend to that problem.
The mixed funding system could unravel and disintegrate, which brings me to the subject of low-cost home ownership. Tai Cymru has drawn up a new proposal for assisted ownership, whereby aspiring owner-occupiers who cannot buy on the open market have to raise only 70 per cent. of the cost of a house and HAG provides the remaining 30 per cent. That is an interesting proposal and I have no objection, in principle, to providing some public subsidy, which is what it is, to enable some categories of people to become owner-occupiers. I have no philosophical problems with that, as it is a useful approach, especially when local people on relatively low pay have to compete in the same housing market as wealthier incomers. We were familiar with that phenomenon in my constituency in south-west Wales and throughout western Wales in the late 1980s, when local people were priced out of the market because of demographic phenomena—migration and so forth. That sort of subsidy for acquiring one's own property is useful in that context.
The latest Tai Cymru proposals are ingenious. It is not the first time that it has come up with such ingenious ideas and I am prepared to praise it for that. The system is preferable to shared ownership, which has had some limited success but also some grave failures. It is good to see Wales ploughing its own furrow in devising policies in these times.
I am very dubious, however, about the rationale for assisted ownership presented in Tai Cymru's discussion paper—the creation of social stability. The idea is that social stability can somehow be enhanced by integrating at least 25 per cent. of owner-occupiers into any estate with more than 20 homes. The rules state that, initially, assisted ownership will be provided for in those circumstances. Any estate of more than 20 houses will have to have 25 per cent. of people on an assisted ownership scheme.
Significantly, that shows that Tai Cymru recognises the social problems created by the high-rent policy forced on it by the Government. There is a clear recognition of those significant social problems in Tai Cymru's policy document. We must tackle that aspect—the high-rent, low-HAG policy—as well as the problem of low pay and unemployment, rather than attempting to solve the latter problem by an assisted ownership input in a social housing estate. That attempt at social engineering is unlikely to succeed, as we shall see in a few years' time. We will be able to check to find out whether it has worked in that way.
A further reduction in HAG would be very damaging—indeed, it would be disastrous. It would be equally inappropriate for the Secretary of State to insist on an

ever-greater proportion of Tai Cymru's budget being set aside for low-cost home ownership. In Wales, we want no emulation of the situation in England, where the Housing Corporation is being forced—kicking and screaming, I understand—to increase the percentage of its budget for low-cost home ownership from 33 to 45 per cent. between 1995 and 1997. That is the way that England is going, but we must not go that way in Wales.
All the evidence confirms that what one housing director told me in a letter this week is true throughout Wales. I shall quote his opinion, as I am sure that it is typical. He said:
There remains a significant problem of unmet social housing need which demands the provision of low-cost rented housing rather than housing for sale which may well be outside the scope of local applicants due to the uncertain local economy and low wage base".
I am afraid that an uncertain local economy and a low wage base are not untypical of the Welsh situation. There is a consensus among people involved with housing policy in Wales—in the housing association movement, local authorities and charities, such as Shelter.
The Welsh Office knows of the 1990 survey conducted for the Council of Welsh Districts and the House Builders Federation, which found that less than half of new households formed in Wales could afford to buy the cheaper, older, second-hand homes available in their area. The position has probably improved since then because the market is less vibrant, but it is not significantly different. A large proportion of new households will not be in a position to enter into owner-occupation, even with the assisted ownership scheme.

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman quoted a director of housing. May I quote another—the director of housing for Ynys Môn—who said:
I consider that the existing housing stock on the island, together with the current initiatives being undertaken in partnership with private landlords and developers, will provide the decent homes which every Ynys Môn resident has a right to expect.

Mr. Dafis: I would be very surprised if my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) did not confirm that young people wishing to set up home for the first time will find it difficult to get housing in Ynys Môn. If he will not confirm that, it must be the exception, as that is the general picture throughout rural Wales.
If one matched the housing stock—the aggregate number of houses—with local demand, one might be able to say that there was sufficient balance, but that is not the end of the story as there are population movements. Other people move in, and young people find themselves marginalised and unable to acquire property to live in.
We know that the Government's not-so-hidden agenda—it is hardly hidden at all, in fact—is the advancement of the private sector, even in the provision of social housing. There is talk, which the Under-Secretary of State did not deny in a recent reply to me, of paying HAG-type grants to private developers and landlords, which is an entirely different approach. The private sector has expressed scepticism about the idea, knowing that it will be in competition with the housing association movement for the same financial resources. Surely it is far better for that sort of provision to be made through the public sector, housing associations and local authorities.
The Minister of State for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction at the Department of the Environment,


extolled the virtues of HAMA, whereby housing associations become managing agents for private landlords. There is nothing particularly wrong with that in itself, but we must recognise how volatile, insecure and unstable such provision would be.
Private houses are lying unoccupied at the moment because the owners have been unable to sell them in today's depressed market. As soon as the market becomes more positive, the properties will be put up for sale, so trying to tackle the needs of social housing through that sort of procedure would be profoundly unsatisfactory.
Some Conservatives see housing associations as playing only a transitional role in the move towards an entirely privately owned housing stock. I am sure that many Conservative Members have that view. In Wales, the number of homes for rent in the private sector has fallen by 10,000 since 1981, so anyone who imagines that we will find salvation in that direction—either in terms of the number of homes or the quality of management—is deluding himself.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the decline in private rented sector has been brought to a halt since the Housing Act 1988 and will be ultimately reversed?

Mr. Dafis: There is no evidence of that in Wales, and the statistics certainly do not confirm it. The hon. Gentleman might be looking at the figures between 1988 and 1992, but during the past 10 years there has been a decline.
It would be wrong to look in that direction for the provision of social housing, certainly in terms of the quality of management. The Department of the Environment recognises that in its suggestion that housing associations should be providing management services to the private sector. That is a recognition that private landlords cannot, and do not wish to, provide the quality of management that is currently provided by housing associations and local authorities.

Mr. Sweeney: Is not the reason for the reluctance of the private sector to increase the stock of private rented accommodation the fact that there is a fear that, at some stage in the future, the Opposition might reintroduce rent controls and other measures which would mean that investment in the private rented sector would prove to be misplaced? Is not all-party co-operation and an assurance to the private sector that it is to be welcomed and encouraged, rather than constantly denigrated, the solution to the problem?

Mr. Dafis: I was not denigrating the private sector, and I was not saying that the private sector might not make a contribution. I am saying that it would be foolish to look in that direction for a major contribution to solving the problem of social housing in Wales, and the statistics clearly indicate that.
There are people in the Conservative party who are prepared to delude themselves concerning the role of the private sector. In one of the debates on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs called for a wide-ranging new housing Bill in which the brave new world of the private sector would be advanced even further. It was a very interesting dialogue between the Minister and the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham),

in which local authorities were denigrated as landlords and the scenario of the large-scale provision of social housing by the private sector was proposed.
What was on the cards there was local authorities having no housing for rent at all. Clearly, there are different emphases within the Conservative party and one of the purposes of the debate tonight is to find out where the Secretary of State for Wales stands in the Conservative party in the matter. Will he represent clearly identifiable Welsh views and interests, or is it his priority to promote a right-wing agenda within his own party? Recent reports indicate the latter. It is said that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to introduce the right to buy for housing association properties which have been provided with mixed funding. That would have far-reaching and problematical implications.
Hitherto, the existence of a degree of administrative devolution has afforded some protection for Wales against the worst excesses of right-wing ideology in housing and other policies. However, it is insufficient protection, and we must ask ourselves: what will protect us from a new housing Bill? What will enable us to devise an approach to housing that is truly appropriate for Wales and in keeping with our values and priorities? We say that only a Welsh parliament with legislative and revenue-raising powers can enable us to do that. We hope that all the Opposition parties will support us tonight in this matter.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question to add instead thereof
'congratulates the Government on its comprehensive housing policies to meet the needs and aspirations of the people of Wales; welcomes in particular the high and increasing level of home ownership in Wales; supports measures to promote wider home ownership; notes the high level of investment by Tai Cymru since 1989 which has exceeded £1 billion and produced nearly 22,000 homes; welcomes the attraction of substantial private funding to the housing association programme enabling greater diversity and choice; and rejects the call for the establishment of a Parliament for Wales which would create an unnecessary tier of Government and would waste resources.'
We had a ramble through the by-ways of housing policy from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), ending with a short eulogy to the idea of an all-taxing, all-regulating and all-legislating Welsh assembly. It is interesting that the Opposition still have not clarified all the details about the kind of assembly that they would like, but at least the hon. Gentleman's party is clear and straightforward: tax more, legislate more, put in more red tape and tie people up in more bureaucratic knots—that is the kind of assembly they would like for Wales.
I look forward to seeing the verdict of the electorate on that in due course in a general election, and I know that the electorate will say a big no to an all-taxing, all-legislating assembly of that kind.
The long march of Everyman to freedom began with rights to justice symbolised by Magna Carta. It gathered momentum in the 19th and 20th century enfranchisement of all adults in the political life of the country. As the 20th century draws to a close, it is strengthened by a majority coming to own property and by many coming to benefit from college education. Everyman has gained his rights, his votes, his dignity and his enlightenment. Owning a home of your own is an almost universal aspiration and the experience of most.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the suburban semi spread all over Britain, and the suburbs of Cardiff and Swansea grew. Sneered at by the liberal intelligentsia, it was real social housing. Behind those front doors, people enjoyed more comfort than had been available to their parents. By those hearths, loves and lives were cultivated in a fruitful family way. The superior mind of socialist Bloomsbury found that hard to take—as some Opposition Members seem to—along with their whisky and soda. That housing was what people wanted then, and that is what many people in Wales want again today.
Design should not be solely a matter for the expert. We all have a view, and the profusion of styles is a consequence. Architecture moulds and reflects the spirit, and architectural style in Britain, I am pleased to say, is now much more varied than it was in the 1960s. There are many good examples in Wales.
The drab conformity of buildings in the countries of the old Warsaw pact reflected their totalitarian and uniform world view. Concrete architecture was also part of the levelling spirit of post-war Britain—mean-minded and unhelpful. British architecture today is part of the energy and variety of contemporary life and a vital part of our housing policy.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State will be aware that in many of the more historic towns of Wales—I am thinking of Caernarfon in particular, but there are others around Wales—it may be more costly to provide housing and other buildings to the acceptable architectural standard that the right hon. Gentleman describes. Will he confirm that the Welsh Office will always be prepared to look sympathetically at the differential in cost between the market value attainable by a development in such towns and the higher cost necessary to meet those historic architectural requirements?

Mr. Redwood: In sensitive areas and conservation areas, it is particularly important that architecture should be sensitive to what is in the surroundings. I visited Caernarfon recently—as the right hon. Gentleman knows—to see the good work that is going on there on the projects that we and the local authority are backing to restore some of the beauty and excellence of the buildings in the heart of the town.
On the more general point, design matters. If it requires money—and it is legal to grant permission—I should like to see that work done. Sometimes it does not require more money—just a different and better design.
People should also be careful to look at the total cost—not just the one-off capital cost of a building, but the maintenance costs and the cost of using a building over many years. How depressing it is to visit schools where extensions were put up in the 1960s, for example, with flat roofs. They were cheap at the time, but my goodness, they have cost us dear ever since in trying to remedy the problems that they created. I want no part of that today in our housing policies; I want good design and practical, sturdy buildings, which also add something to the architectural life of our towns and villages.
People are now walking tall in modern Wales and modern Britain. People know that owning their home gives them more options. When we buy a house, we appreciate that the money we spend can make us richer. If people rent

a house all their life, the money they spend can make the landlord richer. At a time like the present, when interest rates are low, when land is cheap, when inflation is low and growth is back in the economy, it is ideal to make a further leap forward in that great policy.
The idea that social housing should be housing for rent is one of the oddest in British social policy. Subsidised housing for rent not only reduces the scope for people to move house and to develop their lives as they see fit: low-cost home ownership is better value for the tenant and the taxpayer and it does not have the drawbacks of some rented accommodation.
Those who are truly concerned, as I am, to provide real social housing should think twice about those pensioners who pay high bills when they have their lowest income and are most frail. Many of those who have bought a house have much better prospects in their old age. They may be able to live on in their house for the rest of their life rent free. Alternatively, they may sell the house and use the money to provide more suitable sheltered accommodation in old age, in a setting of their choice, with the care of their choice.
If a couple had set out, just before the war, and purchased a house in Wales, after 20 or 25 years of paying a mortgage they would own their house. They would have no more mortgage to pay, let alone rent, and they would have an extremely valuable asset. If that same couple had set out and rented property—I am advised that rents were about 30p a week—and if they were still fortunate to be alive and renting a subsidised property, they would be paying 100 times that rental each week and they would have nothing to show for all the money that they had spent over all those years. For that reason and many others, the best social housing of all is low-cost home ownership.
The success of our housing policy in the 1980s was to attract many more people into ownership. The biggest advances by far came through rising incomes and more employment opportunities, which enabled many people to buy new homes of their own for the first time in the many attractive estates and villages that grew up around Wales. A very successful council house sales programme converted many tenants into owners. In the 1990s, we need to make sure that housing associations, too, make their contribution.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Would the Secretary of State care to comment on what has been perceived as a particularly difficult British economic problem? He has rightly pointed out that, in the past, investing in one's home was considered the best use of a person's money. In other European countries, however, investing in some company that makes something is considered a better use of one's money. The problem is that, over the years, it has been a better option in Britain to invest in bricks and mortar than in industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that tendency might be a part of our problems today?

Mr. Redwood: People can do both, should do both and, now, largely do do both. Their investment in industry is mainly channelled through their pension savings, usually made on their behalf by their employers' schemes. There is room for both types of investment. Given the current levels of investment in industry, the stock market and in housing, I do not believe that we need to engineer an artificial shift


of the type that the hon. Gentleman has described. There is room for both types of investment, and investment in housing has a lot to recommend it.
Too few housing association tenants have the opportunity to buy their homes. My policy for the housing associations in Wales is to encourage a higher proportion of low-cost home ownership schemes and to encourage right to buy for new tenancies.
Local authorities can also play an essential role in facilitating home ownership and, at the same time, freeing up their stock for those waiting for council homes. Today, I am announcing a package of £4 million for local authorities from the homelessness reserve. Of that sum, £1 million will support enterprising schemes, including proposals from Newport borough council working with Lovell Partnerships to provide 36 homes and from Alyn and Deeside and Ogwr for 23 do-it-yourself shared ownerships. Some £2.4 million of the £4 million package is available to local authorities for transferable discount schemes, which will enable them to give significant grants to people who move out of council houses to purchase their homes. This means a new tenant for the local authority home and a new home owner at the same time. For those who wish to do so, I am allocating £600,000 to providing accommodation to elderly people moving out of larger council housing into accommodation more suited to their current needs.
Local authorities are in a position to cheapen the initial capital cost of the home by making land available on favourable terms or free. In Wales, I want to see more of those on lower incomes having more immediate access to a home of their own. I also intend to expand shared ownership schemes and other schemes where a subsidised capital value can offer someone a cheap way into a home of their own. The taxpayer is well protected by having a claim on the property should the person decide to sell and realise the gain in the short term.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: As part of the policy to encourage home ownership, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the decision in the case of Murphy v Brentwood district council, which went to the House of Lords on appeal in 1991? As a result of that decision, there is no legal obligation on a local authority should a person who owns his own home find that it is defective. That person cannot sue the local authority for any fault in the inspection of the property during its construction. That represents a major retrograde step for home owners and has caused great concern to people who are purchasing a property.

Mr. Redwood: There are other ways of protecting the interests of those whom the hon. Gentleman is seeking to protect. I assume that they would take proper advice when they were thinking of purchasing their home. There are ways around the problem that the hon. Gentleman is trying to place in the way of that important policy.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Let me spell out the implications of the decision. If a person buys a property from another person and the second owner finds that the builder has gone bankrupt, the insurance company will not cover that property if internal defects appear because of the absence of footings. As a consequence of the case, there is no recourse to sue the local authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that decision and bring in legislation to overrule it? That decision has reversed all previous law. Now, it does not matter what the building regulator says to

the local authority, because the building inspector can do absolutely nothing. People will have no come-back on the local authority if a defect is found.
We want to avoid what happened with BISF housing and Cornish Units, which had so many problems that the Government were forced to introduce legislation on defective housing to remedy them.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has partly offered his own answer, because, when problems emerged, the Government took action to remedy them. I will, of course, read the case to which he referred, but the particular chain of events that he described is a rather extraordinary one and not likely to become common, as he fears.
Now is an extremely good time to make a major advance in low-cost ownership. Land prices fell during the recession and building costs have been controlled by fiercely competitive markets. I have asked the agencies in Wales to bring forward more land for sale. I cannot accept a position where they are hoarding more than 4,000 acres of land, some of it usable for housing.
As a response to the invitation, the Land Authority for Wales will be making available 500 acres per year for all purposes over the next three years. Cardiff Bay development corporation has 150 acres under offer or available; the Welsh Development Agency is bringing forward 330 acres over the next three years and the Development Board for Rural Wales is currently reviewing its land stocks with a view to releasing at least 27 acres. Over the next three years, a total of some 2,000 acres of land will be offered for sale from the public sector. I trust that some of that land will be used for housing.
I also wish to ensure that the training and enterprise councils provide the tradesmen whom the builders will need over the next few years as house building increases again from the low levels of the early 1990s.
I am asking all councils to ensure that sufficient land is granted planning permission for development. I do not want massive increases in development in the most beautiful and prosperous areas of Wales.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said on increasing home ownership and look forward to more people in Wales owning their own homes. However, does he recognise that one group not being catered for is that of young people who are not yet in a position to buy their own homes and who would not obtain the finance? Can we look forward to an announcement of increased facilities to enable them to find properties to rent?

Mr. Redwood: I shall cover that point later in my remarks.
I wish to see realistic attitudes towards redevelopment in areas that most need jobs, especially building jobs, and where land can be recycled and reclaimed. I have asked the WDA to make a major increase in its land reclamation programme and I have given it extra cash to do that. The WDA's single most important task at home over the next few years is to reclaim sufficient land so that the building industry is well supplied, while the best areas of Wales, in environmental terms, are protected from developers' bulldozers.
I shall use my influence over the new development plans of the unitary local authorities to ensure that, in total, Wales has enough development land available for her needs in the foreseeable future. I do not expect a balance


in each individual area, as I wish to ensure that the most beautiful and prosperous parts of Wales are protected, while giving maximum encouragement to those areas in need of regeneration and of many more jobs.
Housing policy must recognise the pressures of social change but also the fact that it will influence social change itself. If we make subsidised housing too readily available to young people, it will induce them to leave home earlier than they would otherwise. Much housing policy in recent years has rightly been designed to take care of young people who are no longer prepared to live at home and other vulnerable groups.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the Secretary of State's point about developing land while protecting the most beautiful and prosperous land, will he concede that, in some cases, land in a prosperous area with low unemployment is next door to a highly populated area with high unemployment, where there is no land to develop? In those circumstances, should not he try to encourage development on that land?

Mr. Redwood: I do not think that there are as many such problems in south Wales as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Occasionally, I shall have to take tough decisions under the planning rules and laws. But I have made it clear in previous debates that, wherever possible, I hope that local people and their local representatives can guide that work. Today's statement offers a way to square the circle between those areas that are less keen on new jobs and development, and those that are keen. The balance in Wales is not too bad, so we come to a sensible answer overall.
On social change and young people, some of that source of increased demand for housing needs to be met, while some of it needs careful handling through a range of other policies. I do not believe that a 16 to 18-year-old should have a right to a subsidised house just because he or she no longer wants to live at home. Only in extreme circumstances should the state intervene to break up a family—for example where violence or grave damage is being done. Most 16 and 17-year-olds are keen to leave home; it is a part of the natural process of growing up. But it does not mean that we should subsidise them to do so.
The bulk of housing support is now routed through housing benefit directly tied to the incomes and outgoings of the individuals concerned. Blanket or general subsidies to bricks and mortar can be a wasteful way to proceed and there is always a danger that the benefits leak to those who do not need such help. There is no need to subsidise a three or four-earner family in a council house bringing in several hundred pounds a week from reasonable jobs; there is every need to provide housing benefits to the low-wage or no-wage family next door to meet the rent bill, which is why we have been shifting the balance of our support.
Our care in the community policy has also added to the demand for suitable housing for the elderly, handicapped and mentally disabled. We need to ensure that sufficient sheltered and very sheltered accommodation is constructed and provided. We should not carry the policy so far that those who need the full support of residential care homes are discouraged from receiving it and are put into the community, where they may be less happy or secure. We need a balance, and I hope that all those involved in

making those difficult judgments will understand the need to reach a sensible conclusion in each case, where either is an option.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I apologise for intervening again, but I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has just said. In my constituency, two hospitals house some seriously physically and mentally handicapped people. Will he add to his remarks the belief that some of those people will need not just care but continuing nursing care of the quality they have now?

Mr. Redwood: They need care that is appropriate for their circumstances. I do not want to get involved in specific cases, for obvious reasons. A judgment must always be made on whether people need medical care, which is under one set of arrangements, or more general care, which is under another. I want them to receive the care that they need. May I make it clear to all those involved in those judgments that, for my part, there is no wish to ensure that they are all placed in the community? Obviously, I am keen on the policy where it makes sense for them to be put into the community and where they and their relatives, as well as the professionals who make those judgments, think that that is the best solution.
In the "Agenda for Action" in November 1991, we set a target of adding 10,000 subsidised homes over three years. I am delighted that Housing for Wales has provided more than 9,000 homes since then and is on target to provide a further 4,000 in the current financial year. As well as rented accommodation—it is primarily rented accommodation—those will include low-cost housing for sale. To that end, I have asked Housing for Wales to deliver at least 420 homes for low-cost ownership during 1994–95, and I intend to take further action to increase those figures in the future.
Some elderly people find their larger family home too big for their needs. They might like a smaller property, but, if they rent rather than own, it can be difficult to find one. I am supporting the construction of more bungalows for the elderly, which will give them some choice and, where they choose to move, it will free a family home.
Good progress is being made on Wales's first urban village at Victoria, Ebbw Vale. Offices and workshops are being developed alongside homes. All that is in a setting that makes use of garden festival features including lakes, wetlands and woodland. It is a vivid illustration of what can be done to regenerate land ravaged by dereliction. Plans are also progressing well for the urban village in Penarth Haven in Cardiff bay.
I like the idea of urban villages that add something to the rich Welsh architectural tradition. Housing with a heart and communities that are more than the sum total of the houses built are the signs that an urban village has supplanted just another housing estate. Builders and developers take more care with layouts, design and landscaping when they have to persuade individuals to buy, rather than when they are working for the public client. One of the best experiences of my ministerial life before coming to Wales was to award the money to Manchester to demolish part of the Hulme estate—a concrete monstrosity which had aged badly during its short life. It was a standing reproach even to modern brutalism in architecture, and a mocking commentary on the beauty of Bath, which was said to "inspire" it.
Wales was mercifully spared the worst of such construction, but the warning remains: it is better to involve many rather than fewer in designing and buying houses, as it is more likely that they will reflect the spirit of those who will use them.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: This sounds like the Prince of Wales.

Mr. Redwood: I give full credit to the Prince of Wales, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), from a sedentary position, has invited me to do, for his many good and brave words on architecture, which I think have made a strong impact on our architectural debate.
The slab style of architecture reflected only too well a view of society, which said, "We shall give you"—in their words—"a 'subsidised dwelling unit', if you accept our control of your area. Don't ask for tenants' rights, tenants' information or better services—you should be grateful to us for defining the limits of your horizons. When you give your address, you may not get the job or credit as easily as you would if you came from somewhere else, so your dependence is so much more reliable."
I want an end to such areas. It requires different housing; different patterns of ownership; higher expectations. Labour may say that it wants pathways out of poverty, yet it often blocks the roads that offer the most promise to most people.
The other day, I was interested to read that Cynon Valley has decided that its housing problem has improved dramatically in the past three years. In 1991–92, Housing for Wales was spending about £3.3 million in the borough, and the construction of about 115 houses was started. Cynon Valley borough council has now revised its figures downwards, and decided that it needs to build only a maximum of 45 new houses this year. I understand that it has found that there is much more scope for the better use of its existing stock, and that demand is not getting out of control.
That is an interesting idea from Cynon Valley. I look forward to that informing the speeches of some Opposition Members, instead of their usual diatribe that the demand is spiralling out of control, and that the only answer to the problem is to build ever more houses of a specific type.
We should make clear the distinction between rooflessness and homelessness. Fortunately, rooflessness afflicts very few people in Wales. In Cardiff alone, where it would be more serious, the Government are paying £800,000 to provide accommodation and support for young, single, vulnerable people. I want no one to be roofless in Wales. I intend to ensure that accommodation is available for those people who need and want it.
Homelessness is a condition which local authorities have a legal obligation to tackle. Many people who present themselves as homeless are by no means roofless, but they live in accommodation that is not ideal and they would like a change. One of the main aims of our continuing large programme of house building of all types is to meet their aspirations.
The proposals on which the Government consulted earlier this year are designed to bring about fairer arrangements for those people seeking a better home, and those people who are waiting patiently for social housing.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North made several comments about the condition of the housing stock and about ways in which housing policy could

develop. Yes, I, like him, wish more houses to be improved, and I believe that our policy of making available a substantial number of grants to people on low incomes who live in homes of their own that need repairing, is tackling the job manfully. Between January and March this year, 4,194 grant schemes were completed, totalling about £43.7 million. That is another 4,000-plus homes that are in a much better condition. We intend to press on, with substantial sums of money, so that the job can be well done.
I think that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North was mistaking the issue when he commented that we were cutting the HAG grant rate too much, and expecting too much from the private sector contribution. I should have thought that he might welcome that. I hope that the Labour party will welcome it, now that its members are converts to the idea of private capital working alongside public money so that we can have more building work and better conditions for everyone.
It is important that we attract an increasing amount of private money into that type of activity, so that we can build more houses for the amount of public money that we have on offer, because we think that tax bills matter as well as the achievement on the ground, and that is the way of managing both.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North expressed a fear about rents, but he did not take into account building and financing costs, which are vital to the equation before one can predict anything from the HAG rates as to how rents might be affected. I was glad that he praised some methods of shared ownership and assisted ownership, but then he seemed to turn against ownership altogether, which I thought was most disappointing, given the aspirations of many of his constituents.
Wales approaches the end of the 20th century in good heart. Her people are better educated, better housed and more prosperous than at any time in her history. Wales is no longer a nation of tenants in tied cottages. Wales is now a nation of home owners—of those who have seized the opportunity of the Conservative moment, and have a stake in Wales's present and future prosperity. Home ownership—one of the foundation stones of a stable democracy—is now firmly rooted in Welsh soil.
Conservative policies will continue to ensure that advance. If only Opposition Members would join in, they would discover that it is popular as well as right.

Mr. Paul Murphy: That was a fascinating contribution from the Secretary of State. He and I hold degrees in history from the same university, but I suspect that our interpretation of the historic facts of the past few hundred years might differ, at least as regards Wales.
I confess that it is the first time that I have heard the Magna Carta quoted in the Chamber during a debate on housing in Wales. The 13th century barons who devised that great charter in those far off days probably had no idea how most of their tenants lived. I guess that they lived in hovels. I wonder whether, if it were left to the Secretary of State, he might think that the same will happen in Wales, because what he said today bears no relationship whatsoever, either to the recent history of housing in Wales, or to the condition of the houses of the Welsh people.
The Secretary of State speaks at great length about the significance and importance of owner-occupation, and he is right. He said that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) did not support owner-occupation, which is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said that owner-occupation is not the only answer, which is what the Labour party says.
Some people believe that the Labour party supports only rented housing, and that the Conservative party supports only owner-occupation. That is only half right, in the sense that the Labour party certainly believes in a proper choice for people in Wales, as in the rest of the country. Our opinion is that there should be a variety of tenure throughout Wales—that people should have the right to own their houses, but they should also have the right to rent their houses from local authorities, private landlords or housing associations.
The Secretary of State touched on that side of the equation only very lightly, because he told the House and, I suspect, the nation—I mean the British nation rather than the Welsh—that his views on housing are effectively laissez-faire, fairly right-wing, ideological Conservative views about owner-occupation. He failed to mention—perhaps he does not realise, but I am sure that he does—that the percentage of people in Wales who own their houses is extremely large. In our south Wales valleys, a massive proportion of people own their houses. It is no new phenomenon to them.
It seems to me that the Secretary of State failed to understand that, although there were problems in the past with regard to the building of council house estates, because enormous estates were built which were too big and caused all types of social problems, the housing problems in Wales would have been phenomenal if those local authorities had not built those houses in past decades.

Mr. Sweeney: Although it is true that, historically, the percentage of owner-occupancy in Wales has tended to be high, is not it fair to say that it has increased from 59 to 72 per cent. since the Conservatives took over power from Labour?

Mr. Murphy: Inevitably the right-to-buy legislation has meant that thousands of council and development corporation houses have been bought by tenants. Of course the percentage of owner-occupation has increased. There is nothing new about that development or that phenomenon. In those intervening years, however, the number of people who are waiting for homes on council house waiting lists has also increased. There are now 75,000 people in Wales whose names are on local authority waiting lists, and there are nearly 19,000 names on the waiting lists of housing associations. So although, yes, owner-occupation has increased, at the same time the number of people who desperately need accommodation has also increased.
Why on earth cannot the Government understand the need for all types of accommodation, as all European Governments do? Perhaps that is the reason why the Secretary of State does not like it very much. He knows that, in Europe, there is a genuine and good mix of rented accommodation, private and public, and owner-occupation. That richness of diversity of tenure provides the answer to the housing problems in Wales, as it does to

housing problems in Britain as a whole. To that extent, the Secretary of State did not answer the questions that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North rightly and properly asked in his good speech.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The figure for housing stock in Wales today is more than 100,000 higher than it was 14 years ago. The homelessness problem has been caused by marital breakdown and because young people now elect to leave home earlier, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. We have the highest divorce rate in the whole of Europe, which is probably why many of the people are on the waiting lists.

Mr. Murphy: It may be that the divorce rate is high, but this is not a debate on moral values or divorce. It is a debate on the housing needs in Wales. I do not know whether constituents come to the hon. Gentleman's advice surgery every week to talk about accommodation problems, but I am convinced that all hon. Members—whether they represent a Welsh, English or Scottish constituency—will have had the same experience. The problem of housing is high on the list of those who visit our advice surgeries, not simply because they are divorced or because they are single parents, although those are important factors. What do we do with divorced people? Should we not house them? What about the children involved? Are they to be denied housing because their parents are divorced?
We are mistaken if we believe that the housing problems have disappeared simply because the right-to-buy policy has given people the opportunity to buy their own homes from local authorities. The Government are spending much less on housing in Wales than they have for a long time. Between 1989 and 1994, spending on housing fell from £197 million to £79 million. Council house rents have gone up. While the Government have been in power they have been obsessed with local authorities and their role in the provision of housing, whether in Wales or the rest of Britain. They will push up rents as high as they can to ensure that houses are sold to tenants. As a result, council house provision in Wales comes to a halt. Although almost 250,000 houses are still owned by local authorities in Wales, they still need maintaining. The Government have fallen down on providing sufficient money to local authorities to do the job.
The Government state that housing associations are the social providers of housing. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North when he says that we are now in deep trouble because of the changes that the Government are making to the subsidies paid to Tai Cymru and housing associations. The reduction of the grant from 62 to 55 per cent. next year means that rents will rise on average by about 34 per cent.—they have already risen by 61 per cent. since 1989.
It will become evident that the only people able to afford the rents will be those whose rents are paid by some form of housing benefit. The last thing that we want to do is to turn the estates built by housing associations into ghettos.

Mr. Morgan: Welfare ghettos.

Mr. Murphy: As my hon. Friend says, they will be nothing more than welfare ghettos.
If ever there were a prescription for social divisiveness in Wales, that is it. What we need is what Governments of


both colours developed in my town of Cwmbran—the only new town in Wales for 30 years. They developed a mix of owner-occupation and houses with reasonable rents. That mix will disappear and all that will be left in Wales will be rented provision that provides nothing more than welfare ghettos, which will be bad news for Wales.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way because I am interested in exploring that issue. Does he also recognise that it is not only the new build housing association areas that are becoming welfare ghettos, but older, inner city areas? House prices are relatively cheap in such districts, so housing associations have bought up about one fifth or perhaps 30 per cent. of the housing stock—I know that that is true in certain parts of Cardiff. Those districts are becoming ghettos as a result of the policies that my hon. Friend is explaining.

Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right—I know that he has personal experience of those districts as he has represented them, both as a Member of Parliament and as a councillor. It is important for us to realise that the problems that we have identified exist not only in the valleys and rural areas, but in Welsh cities. I fear that the divisive policies that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon could make the position even worse.
Society in Wales is becoming polarised, which is the last thing that we want. We need much more harmonisation, which can occur only if there is a proper mix. But because the Government are obsessed with not allowing local authorities to play a housing role, either as a provider or an enabler, we find ourselves in a serious situation. The Nationwide building society has threatened to pull out of the housing association sector as a direct result of the Government reducing the grant from 62 to 55 per cent.
A subject that must exercise the mind of anyone involved in housing in Wales or any public representative in Wales is the Government's consultation exercise on homelessness. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcements on any action that will reduce homelessness. If the right hon. Gentleman listened to the radio this morning, he will know that 500 church housing groups have condemned the Government's latest proposals on homelessness. The Government are setting the desperate against the very desperate. We must not create a situation where those on housing waiting lists are set against those who are homeless—they are often the same people.
Statistics show that, in 1992, only 11 per cent. of households that were accepted as homeless were rehoused in ordinary council houses. That shows that the policy does not work. I suspect that the Government's hidden agenda—perhaps not in Wales, but elsewhere in Britain—is to see the homeless figures fall. They wanted unemployment figures to fall, so they changed the system and massaged the figures. They say that homelessness does not exist, so the figures fall, but the problem remains. I urge the Secretary of State to think hard. All sorts of people in Wales, including those in women's refuges, could lose out as a direct consequence of the Government's proposals on homelessness.
The Secretary of State talks about the housing stock in Wales. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North rightly said, 37 per cent. of houses were built before 1919. Some 42 per cent. of all Welsh owner-occupied houses in Wales are in need of repair. Although the finance

has been increased in the past few years, it is not new money. Instead of being used for council stock, the money is being spent on private stock. Whoever heard of a system where a mandatory grant for housing renovations cannot be used because the local authority has been cash limited by the Welsh Office? As a result, I suspect that villages and towns, particularly in the valleys, will be severely affected by the dotty combination of Government policies that do not seem to mix.
The maximum renovation grant has been reduced from £50,000 to £24,000. Obviously, the houses most in need of repair are those least likely to be repaired, and the quality of housing will be affected. Our rural districts are also hit.

Mr. Redwood: How much additional new money is the hon. Member and his party prepared to pledge to housing in Wales?

Mr. Murphy: Two years before a general election I am not in a position to give the figures and I would be foolish to do so. If the Secretary of State would tell me by how much the Government were to increase or reduce taxation next year, I would be prepared to answer his question. He knows that when the Labour Government come to power after the next general election, we will look at the books and work out our priorities. Our priorities will be different from those of the present Government. We intend to use the capital receipts held by local authorities to build houses and to improve the council stock. We would not do something as daft as to award a mandatory grant, but not allow a local authority to use the money.
Everybody in Wales agrees that the problem with owner-occupation is not so much that it is bad as that people in Wales often cannot afford to become owner-occupiers. I welcome anything that the Government do to provide low-cost housing in Wales for owner-occupation. That is vital, but we must not forget that in many of the cities and valleys of Wales—although not so much in the rural areas—there are secondhand homes which are quite old but which can be bought for £30,000 or even less. In 1990, the Council of Welsh Districts reported that 54 per cent. of new households in Wales could not afford home ownership. The same is roughly true today. Private house building is down; only 6,000 were built last year, as opposed to 9,000 five years ago.
What I am saying holds good for every part of Wales. Dyfed has the lowest average male manual earnings of any British county. Powys has the lowest average male earnings in the country. In Mid-Glamorgan, 22 per cent. of men and 40 per cent. of women are economically inactive. In Gwynedd, male disposable earnings are 14 per cent. below the British average. Wales is at the bottom of the earnings list in Great Britain. If people do not earn enough, they cannot afford mortgages. That is why only 6,000 new houses a year are being built now.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to figures published by Lloyd's earlier this year, the average amount spent on housing in Wales is 16 per cent. of a person's income, whereas in England it is 19 per cent?

Mr. Murphy: I do not give much credence to figures from Lloyd's, but, whether they are right or wrong, they do not invalidate the figures that I have just given. We are the


lowest earners, and that in turn means that people in Wales, especially young families setting off up the housing ladder, cannot afford to buy houses.

Mr. Sweeney: Surely that is only one half of the equation? If housing costs are lower in Wales, then lower wages in Wales should not make the slightest difference. In fact, if the gap between English and Welsh housing costs is wider than the gap between earnings, Welsh people will be better able to buy their own homes.

Mr. Murphy: But even people in the parts of Wales with traditionally low-cost housing cannot afford to buy. The survey done by the CWD four years ago showed that the average price of a house was about £31,000, and it has not changed much since. Even so, houses are not being bought. No one should delude himself that people in Wales are in a position to buy houses straight away. They are not.
We know that young couples do not enjoy the same opportunities today as they did 10 or 15 years ago—whether to buy a house, or to rent a house from an association, a local authority or the private sector. That is why 5,000 people in my constituency linger on the waiting list, and the situation is not improving.
The answer is not to say that we need more private-sector owner-occupied houses. That is certainly part of the answer, but it is only part of it. Because the Government do not want to allow councils to be involved in house building, and because they are cutting back the work of the housing associations, matters will only get worse. I think that we need another report on Tai Cymru. We have heard about all the reports on other quangos, and I should like to know what Tai Cymru is up to half the time. If the Government keep on cutting grants, it will not have much left to do. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will have a look at Tai Cymru's work in the months to come.
We must allow councils to start using their capital receipts to buy houses. We also need a change in planning laws in our rural areas so that people can stay in the villages and towns in which they were brought up. The Government must abandon their homelessness review and provide proper accommodation for those in desperate need of it. More members of local authorities must be represented on the board of Tai Cymru—none of them are at present. The Government must abandon their obsession with local authorities.
Only this week, the Queen gave her Royal Assent to the Local Government (Wales) Bill, and within six or seven months, the new shadow authorities will come into being. Those 22 new authorities in Wales will be housing authorities and the opportunity exists to allow them to provide proper housing for the people of Wales. The Government should give them the resources and the opportunity to do just that.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said that he was concerned about the fact that there was insufficient housing provision in Wales. As I listened to the list of prescriptions that he gave the House, however, it seemed to me that everything that he proposed would lead to less housing being available.
The hon. Gentleman complained first about the rehabilitation of property. I acknowledge his point about the financial difficulties that have resulted from fiscal changes to do with VAT and charges. He also rightly outlined another problem: when someone goes to rehabilitate a property, he does not know what difficulties he may find, so the costs, necessarily, become higher. The hon. Gentleman suggested that grants should therefore be higher. Without more resources, however, that would mean fewer houses. That is the difficulty that has faced Tai Cymru in all its decisions. It has not opposed rehabilitation; it is just that, if we choose the more expensive route, we end up with fewer houses. That is surely not what we want, given a recognition that we must provide more social housing, and it goes against the direction in which our policy should be aimed.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North also spoke about rents. The same trade-off applies to rents. If we drive them downwards, perhaps by increasing housing association grant rates, as the hon. Gentleman proposed, again, without increased resources, there are bound to be fewer houses. That points up the emptiness of the remarks by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who was not prepared to tell us anything about resources, but who was prepared to describe the direction in which we should move in respect of rents, HAG rates and so on. Without additional resources, I repeat, in the end, that fewer houses will be provided.

Mr. Dafis: The balance between HAG and private money is crucial. In theory, we can increase the number of houses if we can continue to increase the proportion of private funding—but there must be a cut-off point. That is the vital balance to be struck between the number of houses provided and the rents charged. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of further reducing HAG in Wales?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we cannot drive down HAG rates inexorably without ultimately finding that private finance is not available. The hon. Gentleman will know that I addressed the Federation of Welsh Housing Associations conference precisely on that point. We know from private financiers that once the proportion falls below 50 per cent., private finance may dry up. We have not yet reached that point. Still, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue for the future. A move in the opposite direction, to increase HAG rates, will inexorably lead to the provision of fewer houses.
Earlier in the debate, I intervened to say that the Welsh housing stock currently stands at record levels. That fact is not generally acknowledged when we debate housing issues. Since 1979, for instance, more than 100,000 extra homes have been provided. I return to the point about Cynon Valley: I recognise that homelessness there has increased, but it has done so at the same time as the population has declined, even though we have provided more homes.
Social factors are the reason why we need so many more homes—there are many more households. This is not a moral judgment or an attack upon those who, for one reason or another, have been engaged in a marital breakdown, but we cannot say in a politically correct way that we shall not speak about, or draw attention to the fact that, despite the massive addition to the number of houses in Wales, we still have a prevailing homelessness problem.


We have to examine the reasons for that and, at the same time, recognise that there is a duty on the Government to do what they can to alleviate that problem.
I make no apology for saying that during the past 20 years, the divorce rate has doubled and we now have the highest divorce rate in Europe. Those are important factors in understanding some of the difficulties that are placed within the remit of Government in addressing housing problems. What is the response? Since Tai Cymru was formed, 22,000 extra homes have been provided. Housing for Wales has so far spent £903 million, provided by the Welsh Office in a variety of ways. Listening to the debate, one would think that the whole thrust of the Housing for Wales programme is towards home ownership of one sort or another, through shared ownership or whatever.
Housing for Wales aims to deliver about 10 per cent. on the assisted ownership basis, according to the latest proposals, and the fall from that initial target of 10 per cent. has been due largely to the recession in house prices. All the evidence shows that in recent years people have not generally been going into private home ownership so much because, for the first time, we have seen the phenomenon of declining house prices.
As we now have historically low interest rates and house prices are starting to rise again, it is essential that Tai Cymru should take advantage of that by returning to the 10 per cent. figure and helping those people by adopting the remarks and words of the hon. Member for Torfaen and offering people the choice. If up to 10 per cent. of the people funded by Tai Cymru wish to take advantage of the scheme, they should be able to do so. The great advantage is that if we are able to spend the money in that way, we shall end up housing more people, and that has to be in everyone's interest.

Mr. Dafis: Would the hon. Gentleman approve of an increase over and above the 10 per cent. currently allocated to the owner-occupied sector? Would he like that percentage to increase beyond 10 per cent?

Mr. Evans: I believe very much in choice. If I have a criticism of the original "Agenda for Action" paper—I have to be careful as when it was published I was deputy chairman of Tai Cymru—it is that the Government set a target for owner-occupation. I do not believe that the Government should be setting a target for the level of owner-occupation that they would like in Wales. I believe in choice, and Tai Cymru is right to devote 10 per cent. of its resources to providing the opportunities for people to exercise that choice. If a significant number of people wish to exercise it, we can consider expanding the scheme thereafter, but that is the advantageous way to move.
Let me also outline to the House a view that I have expressed on several occasions in relation to general housing provision. Tai Cymru currently provides about 4,200 houses. The Welsh Affairs Committee received evidence from the chief executive of Tai Cymru to the effect that we need to provide up to 5,000 houses per annum and I support that target.
We have to bite the bullet and challenge those people presenting significantly higher figures. I am aware that Shelter Cymru and the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations are talking in terms of an expansion upwards to 10,000 units per annum. I doubt whether that could be delivered, but one has to recognise what the cost of that provision would be. Looking at the implications for private

finance—some of which have been raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—that would ultimately mean the Welsh Office spending about five times as much on social housing in Wales as it does today. Those who support Shelter Cymru's aims should recognise the substantial financial costs.
Even if we had unlimited resources, it is important to recognise some of the other problems faced by those who are looking for proper and adequate housing within their own communities. I speak particularly about rural communities in my constituency. In recent weeks, I have spoken to some of my constituents in Llangattock and Bulch. The Llangattock community is quite small and the national parks planning guidance, policy and programme for that area allow for the building of 15 houses in Llangattock in the next 10 years. I understand that the policy has been approved, or at least examined, by the Welsh Office. There are 98 people on the waiting list in Llangattock, yet under the planning process only 15 new houses will be built in the next 10 years.
That problem exists not just in my constituency; there is a similar problem in Bulch and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Yns Môn (Mr. Jones). Recently, the hon. Gentleman and I were helpfully sent housing strategies and operational plans from Mr. John Arthur Jones, the noted director of housing in Yns Môn, which make it quite clear that planning permissions within Yns Môn are insufficient to address the number of people actually on the housing waiting list in the area.
There are real planning permission problems in some of our rural areas and I believe that the Welsh Affairs Committee, while expressing concern about some aspects of planning permissions that had been granted, invited the view that there should be some developments in some areas based upon the Welsh settlement pattern. That is important in some parts of rural Wales and is not always recognised by planning authorities.
It is important for the Government to examine the allocation of housing. Although I recognise that additional houses should be provided, allocation is also a matter of great concern. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend announced some changes to the development board, following a number of critical reports, one of which related to a housing allocation matter that activated the entire Welsh media. I spoke today to the local government ombudsman's office and I was informed that in the past five years, he has confirmed 16 cases of critical reports on local authorities in relation to housing allocation matters, 14 of which were serious enough to warrant a finding of maladministration. That illustrates that the allocation of housing is not a matter to be thrown aside; it requires some important consideration.

Mr. Murphy: I do not want to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman, but I assume that he is going to give some consideration in his comments about allocation, as he knows that the vast bulk of local authorities in Wales allocate by a proper points system. What does he mean by further consideration?

Mr. Evans: My area has moved to a points allocation system which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, favours people who present themselves as being immediately homeless—those who are effectively roofless. If a person takes steps to find himself some temporary accommodation while seeking permanent


accommodation from the local authority, sadly, as things stand today, he or she will be on waiting lists for months, if not years, and ultimately probably not housed at all. Those who make no effort to find themselves temporary accommodation have an advantage over those in housing need who make some temporary arrangement, who, as a result of having taken that temporary arrangement, are disadvantaged in housing allocation thereafter. The whole issue should be examined by the Government and changes brought forward.
If the Government encourage local authorities to provide temporary accommodation, perhaps in the private sector, for people who are immediately roofless, they could take action with regard to other aspects, one of the most important of which concerns houses in multiple occupation. I have received a letter from Radnorshire district council which draws attention to the Prime Minister's commitment, given in the House on 6 May 1994, to have a Government review of the licensing of such houses. Some documents that have been sent to me show that the likelihood of injury to tenants in such accommodation is six times higher than is the case with other tenants. That leads me to the view that action is necessary.
I welcome the fact that there has been a 34 per cent. reduction in the use of bed and breakfast accommodation, but I should ultimately like to see its use eliminated. I am strongly of the view that it has no part to play in Britain's housing provision. I am also concerned about overall levels of housing benefit. However, in deference to the House and the fact that others wish to speak, I shall leave that point.
Much has been said about Tai Cymru's proposals about assisted ownership. As I said earlier, that amounts to barely 10 per cent. of the overall resources that will be made available by Tai Cymru, which will still be geared towards the provision of rented housing for those in housing need. Housing for Wales should be congratulated on the significant contribution that it has made in that sector over the past five years. It would be wrong if the tenor of the debate were to lead to the view within housing circles in Wales that the thrust of Tai Cymru's provision in future will be directed only towards owner-occupation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Alex Carlile: By making his excellent choice of subject for today's debate, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) drew from the Secretary of State an interesting and provocative statement about the future of housing in Wales. I share with the Secretary of State the hope that owner-occupation can be increased substantially, particularly if that makes it accessible to a wider range of people in the social stratum of Wales. It is extremely important that quality housing should be available to as wide a range of people as possible. The evidence suggests that those who own their own houses sometimes look after them rather better than do those who live in homes in public ownership, so more owner-occupation could lead to a higher quality of property in Wales.
One issue on which the Secretary of State's statement was a little disappointing was housing for rent for young people. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that 16

and 17-year-olds cannot and should not expect to be provided with their own properties to rent. Family life has its difficulties. All of us who have been the parents of teenagers know that the period between 14 and 18 can be one in which there are tense moments, but they are part of building towards an adult life.
However, the Secretary of State may have overlooked the extent of the need for housing for rent for young people older than 17—the 18 to 25 age group. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) about the increasing divorce rate throughout the United Kingdom, but that is a fact with which we must live.
It is also a fact that, in well-regulated families, parents experience intelligent but difficult, or intelligent but wise, young people who, when they reach the age of 18, 19 or 20 build up their own relationships and rightly want to lead their own independent lives, and perhaps are entitled to expect society to give them a footing on the housing ladder. In rural mid-Wales—for example, in Newtown or Welshpool in my constituency—it costs as much to rent a room or a small flat as it does in London, but the wages are significantly lower. There is not the supply of houses to rent that is needed. I do not suggest that that is logical. Many people in the construction industry do not realise that there is, potentially, significant income to be made from building flats to rent. The Government should encourage developers to realise that the opportunities are available and that they are rather foolish not to take them up, but they are not doing so.
Therefore, I invite the Government to consider whether there might not be ways to give private developers, rather than the money, the confidence to realise that building houses for rent for young people is a realistic way first, to provide properties in which young people can live and, secondly, to make a reasonable amount of money from sound business investment. Particularly among the smaller developers—in rural Wales it is inevitable that developers will be small—there is a lack of confidence in that.
That is not a matter of ideology. It is destructive to talk about left and right-wing ideology when one is discussing the building of houses in which young people can live. It is inevitable that there will be a mix between public housing, in one form or another, and private housing, but we must try to ensure that we achieve the quantum of housing that meets at least the majority of need.
I think that all hon. Members are worried when young people, sometimes with a baby or expecting a baby, come to them, and they find that one partner is living with one set of parents and the other with the other set of parents. That is a common experience. We must do something more to try to provide such people with the properties that they need in the period before they have the earnings and the capital base to borrow money from banks or building societies.
In this short contribution—I know that others wish to speak—I want to make three other points. The first relates to renovation grants. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North was right to refer to the appalling waiting lists for renovation grants. In my constituency—I have written to Ministers about one or two of the cases—young people live in caravans for years because of the queue for renovation grants. Some of those renovation grants are for old properties that are well worth saving; some are of


historic value. Every year that passes makes it more expensive to rebuild such properties and bring them up to a reasonably modern standard.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the renovation grants regime in order to ensure that it operates in such a way as to achieve a reasonable throughput. It is difficult to explain to constituents, other than by blaming the Government, why they have to wait three, four or five years for such grants. I suppose that those of us in Opposition parties can blame the Government with impunity, but it does not increase one's job satisfaction. I would rather be able to praise the Government on this issue and say that the grants are being made more readily available. It is not fair to blame local authorities. Montgomeryshire district council has been doing its best in this sector.
My next point concerns incomplete private developments. Again, that may be peculiar to areas where private developments are inevitably small, because of rurality, and where the developers are therefore small. My constituency is peppered with private developments which have started with a splendid plan, full of landscaping, trees, good roads, sound drains and everything else that one could wish. Architects are good at preparing such drawings, but they are prepared for builders who, unfortunately, are part of what Customs and Excise call the phoenix syndrome—small developers who go bust and rise from the ashes in a different form on the following day leaving unfinished estates, broken roads, inadequate retention sums, no trees and large bills for the owner-occupiers who are the very people whom we want to encourage to buy properties. That often happens to estates where the properties are relatively cheap and are built to a budget.
Local authorities do their best to imposes conditions on developers, but, if one looks around not just my constituency but others and sees the estates that have been in a dreadful state for years, they do not seem to be working well. It would be good if the Government could examine that issue and find a way to ensure that new dereliction on estates does not arise.
I agree with every word that the Secretary of State said about physically and mentally handicapped people and care in the community. There are people who cannot realistically lead an independent life in the community. I will not draw Ministers again on whether there should be nursing or non-nursing care. I am happy to settle for the Secretary of State's unequivocal statement that there will be appropriate care, based, of course, on appropriate advice.
There are in Wales patients in hospitals for the mentally handicapped for whom appropriate care is nursing care. I am not satisfied, and neither are their carers or relatives, that those patients will be cared for properly if they are placed in the community in two-person or three-person accommodation with changing staff. I ask the Secretary of State to consider ensuring that where they are needed, communities are provided for groups of a dozen or 15 residents—some of whom may be in or near a persistent vegetative state—in which a high level of care is available, so that the public may be reassured that the weakest members of our society are given the strongest protection. Of all the issues discussed today, that is the most important.
We must care for those who cannot care for themselves. Otherwise, as we know, serious abuse follows. It is not enough to wear sackcloth and ashes after sexual abuse has

been committed against weak members of society. I hope that I may look forward to the Secretary of State putting his wise words into wise action.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I am sure that quality, availability and affordability of housing are close to the top of the agenda for all hon. Members, even though we may differ over the appropriate means of achieving those ends. Every week in constituency surgeries I hear about housing problems. They are not a representative cross-section, but, anecdotally, they are relevant. Complainants fall into two categories—young people, often single mothers, desperately trying to find somewhere to live, and older people desperately seeking a transfer from one council house to another.
Young people in the first category are symptomatic of a breakdown in family values. In an ideal world, they would be living at home as members of stable families, and saving up money before even thinking of having a baby. Unfortunately, young people leave home and form relationships, not necessarily in that order, and the girl in question becomes pregnant and needs somewhere to live.
The second category is the result of council housing estates tending, in general, to be unpopular places to live. Well-intentioned national and local government policies in years past have resulted in growing problems in society—a vicious circle of deprivation. New generations often grow up with no firmly rooted family values, family support or stability in their lives. As a consequence, crime becomes endemic in such areas. Many constituents who come to my surgeries begging for a council transfer do so because their homes or cars have been vandalised.
Last week, I saw a constituent who has five children. Three of them are handicapped—one of them severely so. The social services department allocated that lady a car to enable her to transport the extremely handicapped child. It was set fire to, and shortly after the social services provided a replacement vehicle. Just before her visit, that car also was vandalised by stones being smashed on its roof.
Social housing is necessary for some people, but is not desirable. I long for the day when there will be a shift in the balance. My constituency has 75 per cent. owner-occupancy, nearly 20 per cent. council or housing association occupancy, and just 5 per cent. private rented accommodation. I want the private rented sector to be expanded because that is how to achieve more flexibility in the housing market.
The Government's right-to-buy policies have been extremely successful. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) did not do the Government justice when he said that there has always been a high percentage of owner-occupancy in Wales and that it would inevitably continue to rise. In fact, it increased from 59 per cent. in March 1979 to 72 per cent. at the end of 1992. That did not happen by accident. The Government applied a variety of useful measures to encourage owner-occupancy. The right to buy, which was strenuously resisted for years by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, enabled more than 90,000 public sector tenants to purchase their homes.
In 1993, the Government launched a rent-to-mortgage scheme, which extended the opportunity to own to another 70,000 tenants in Wales who cannot immediately afford the full purchase price. Owners of long leases of flats have been given the right to enfranchise their properties. The


long decline in the private rented sector has been arrested, thanks to the Housing Act 1988. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) was sceptical about whether the private rented sector is growing, but between 1990 and 1992 the number of privately rented dwellings increased by 15,000.
Housing associations have become the main providers of new, affordable housing. Since 1985, public expenditure on housing associations has been supplemented by £177 million of private sector finance. That means that more homes can be built at a time of public expenditure restraint.
I want to sound a note of caution, because the social problems that developed from the expansion of council housing estates may recur in respect of housing association estates. I see that happening already in my constituency. One of my constituents complained recently that, shortly after she purchased a house on a new estate, the developer had difficulty selling the remaining properties because of market conditions. Consequently, a job lot of the properties was sold to a housing association. That lady feels that the misbehaviour of some of the tenants who have moved into those properties has led to a reduction in the value of her house.

Mr. Murphy: What a shame.

Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman may say that—from a sedentary position—but surely we should be concerned about people who find themselves in the negative-equity trap because of bad behaviour on the estates on which they live. We need to ensure that, in future, huge housing association blocks do not create the same problems.

Dr. Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman's assessment of the position seems fairly insulting to some of us who grew up in excellent houses on council estates, which are fine places in which to grow up. When the Conservative Government took office in 1979, local authorities were suddenly deprived of the ability to maintain such houses. It is a question of maintenance, whether the properties concerned are in the public or the private sector.
My local authority has been forced to send letters warning people that they will have to wait 20 years for maintenance grants. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us where the sense or justice is in that. How much better it would be for such groups of houses if enough money were available to renovate and maintain them.

Mr. Sweeney: It is a bit rich for a Labour Member to talk about the maintenance of council houses. For a short time, I lived on the Hulme housing estate, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That estate was run by Labour-controlled Manchester city council; the standard of maintenance seemed to be nil, and half the properties in the block that I inhabited were empty.
Since the present Government have been in office, the number of houses in Wales has increased from 1.1 million to 2.2 million in absolute terms. The problem is matching housing stock to housing needs. I believe that that can best be done through the private sector and market forces. I must declare an interest: I am a landlord, albeit not in

Wales. I believe, however, that in order to increase occupancy of houses the Government must try harder to encourage landlords to enter the private rented sector.
The Government have rightly allowed those with lodgers to receive the first part of their rental income tax free. Further steps need to be taken to encourage multiple occupation, which is currently inhibited by draconian regulations. I am not convinced that living in bedsits serves the best interests of, for instance, students and young mothers; I think that such accommodation is basically lonely and anti-social, and brings about misery and the breakdown of family ties. More people should live en famine, with perhaps half a dozen people sharing a house. Students have had wide experience of that way of life, and if such properties are well run and in good condition they can provide landlords with a good return and justify investment.
The Opposition parties could contribute in an important way. They are fond of looking forward to the day—constantly receding—when they may take office. The private rented sector would greatly appreciate a commitment to support and encourage increased provision of private rented accommodation. That would produce a better balance in the housing market and help to guard against shortages.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: This has been a good debate and most of the speeches have been constructive. I intend to be generous: hon. Members on both sides of the House have made some excellent points. Although there has been a difference of emphasis, most of what we have heard has been positive. I confess that I found some of the comments of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) rather bizarre; at times, I could not follow his train of thought. I was surprised that he should attack housing associations, which have demonstrated excellent management skills over the years. The hon. Gentleman would like much of the balance to be transferred to the private sector, but many private developers do not possess such skills.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out that many private estates in Wales are left after the developers have gone bust. Roads are unmade, weeds spring up and amenity areas become overgrown. The record of some private developers leaves a lot to be desired. No one suggests that a single organisation has all the answers to the problem of housing provision; a balance must be struck between the requirements of those who are fortunate enough to be able to afford their own homes and those who cannot do so, whatever the circumstances. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) said, social circumstances sometimes put people on waiting lists, but—

Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has not been present for the debate.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, but it does not remove our responsibility to try to find some answers. I think that the main answer lies in a proper balance between local authorities, housing associations and private developers, which should work together to meet the needs of the people of Wales. If it has done nothing else, the debate has shown


how important it is for such co-operation to continue. Tomorrow's Hansard will show that, in that regard, it has been excellent.
I said that I intended to be generous in my praise for those who have spoken, but I must point out that the Secretary of State was rather uncharitable about my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who made an excellent and well-researched speech.

Mr. Richards: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) alleged that I had not been present during the debate. That is not true; I had to leave the Chamber for half an hour to hear a serious complaint from one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, Mr. Gordon Pritchard, about Ynys Môn borough council.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Hon. Members cannot use debating time to explain why they were or were not in the Chamber. A brief explanation might be all right, but further explanations are not necessary.

Mr. Jones: I think it important for me to respond to points made by hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate and who have made constructive contributions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North on the presentation of his speech, its detail and research and the way in which he advanced his arguments.

Dr. Howells: And his good looks!

Mr. Jones: Yes, and his good looks—the most important factor of all.
The Secretary of State seemed to want to give us a lesson in home ownership. The Minister of State, Welsh Office will know that there is a long tradition of home ownership in Wales. The word perchentyaeth is rooted in Welsh culture, history and tradition. The Secretary of State should discuss that with the Minister so that he will understand that we are not averse to home ownership, which we have always valued and which we want to extend.
The Secretary of State referred to Magna Carta. We are fortunate in Wales: we have much information on our history. We know about not only Magna Carta but the laws of Hywel Dda. When the Secretary of State discusses those laws over a cup of tea with the Minister, he will learn that throughout their history Welsh people have attached great importance to home ownership. I am sure that he will recognise that. Perhaps in his reply the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will acknowledge that on behalf of the people of Wales.
The Secretary of State made some interesting points about the role of housing associations and the need for them to encourage low-cost home ownership. We should like him to say a bit more about that on another occasion. His use of the word "encourage" is interesting. If he means that he would like housing associations to move in that direction, that is acceptable; but if he is saying that the funding for Tai Cymru will have to move in that direction, that is another matter. We are entitled to know whether it is the former or the latter. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer that question.
We have heard some interesting arguments about housing association grant. My hon. Friend the Member for

Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said that he did not want it to be reduced to less than 62 per cent. I recall that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor said that he did not want it to be reduced substantially. We did not hear whether the Secretary of State would support such a reduction, so the Under-Secretary must say what the Government have in mind. What proportion of HAG will be paid?
All statistics and surveys show that the three key issues that most affect people's lives are their families, their health and their homes, which are reflected in the problems that hon. Members hear about in their surgeries every week. Housing is the single most important issue to our constituents. That is why we chose the subject for our Opposition day debate.
Housing is important because it meets not only the physical need for shelter from rain and for comfort but the emotional need of well-being and of satisfaction with one's position in life. Will the Government ensure that more people in Wales have such benefits? We acknowledge that people will own their own homes, and it is acceptable that their proportion has increased, but, as a result of Government policies, some people have no opportunity to own a house of any description and their lives are being blighted. We want the Government to have the priorities that the people of Wales consistently vote for but are never delivered.
The problem is that since 1979 a welter of legislation has been passed. Housing Act after housing Act has sought to deal with the problems. We accept that some of those Acts have worked, but, as always, they have failed some groups of people.
I must confess that I was interested in the Secretary of State's remarks about a Welsh assembly or parliament raising taxes. This Government have raised more taxes than any other in the history of the United Kingdom, so to accuse us of wanting to raise more taxes in a Welsh parliament was pretty rich.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about increases in legislation. I was elected to the House in 1987. The number of Acts, including housing Acts, has rocketed since 1979.

Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend said that some categories of people inevitably faced difficulties. Does he accept that areas also experience difficulties? In Dwyfor, in my constituency, second homes account for 20 per cent. of the housing stock, and pressure is placed on the rented sector because rents are dictated by the holiday market. That is an important industry, but private rents are too high for people who want to rent. Likewise, people cannot afford to buy because the cost of buying a house is determined by factors outside the local economy. In Dwyfor, Meirionnydd and other areas where tourism is important, there is a need for rented social housing because external factors mean that the market cannot provide.

Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has long experience of those matters. He has been in the House a number of years and has seen the problems that have occurred in my and other hon. Members' constituencies.
My hon. Friend has reminded me of an important point. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan said that if the value of houses in Wales is lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the amount of grant local authorities were giving was lower, somehow or other equality resulted.
The hon. Gentleman should remember that the property boom of the 1980s alienated many young Welsh people, who could not get into the property market. Between 1985 and 1988, house prices in Ynys Môn doubled. Incomes, however, did not double during that period. Having set their heart on a house, young people who had spent years saving up a deposit were faced with despair because they could not afford the mortgage. A couple who had tried to save a small deposit and obtain a 95 per cent. mortgage on a property worth £40,000 in 1985 found that, in 1988, its value had risen to £85,000. Their incomes or salaries were not sufficient for them to afford the house.
Pressures have therefore been placed on the planning system and on the provision of housing for social need. I reject the hon. Gentleman's argument that there should not be any room for social housing in Wales. It is crucial that we move on the issue today.

Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: I appreciate that I have named the hon. Gentleman, but I must finish making my points because we want to wind up the debate quickly.
We have a different housing philosophy in Wales. We want a proper balance. The motion states that the only way in which we can properly meet the housing needs of the Welsh people is to have a parliament of our own in Cardiff.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We have had an interesting debate. We realise now that both the Welsh nationalists and the Labour party would take action that would result in a reduction in the amount of social housing being built in Wales, that the Labour party is determined to spend more in this area, but is desperately afraid to say how much, and that both would impose the extra taxation that a Welsh assembly would cost the people of Wales.
Opposition Members talked about the need for specific Welsh policies. I honestly do not know where they have been for the past few years. Have they not taken note of the many initiatives which we have taken forward in Wales precisely to meet the specific housing needs of the people of Wales? Have they not read "Agenda for Action for Housing in Wales", which was published by my predecessor in November 1991? In that document—the first of its kind anywhere in the United Kingdom—we set out our policies, which we have been following over a number of years and which have brought forward real achievements, of which we can all be proud.
The agenda set out three main objectives: to encourage home ownership for the vast majority of the people in Wales so that about 80 per cent. of households can achieve owner occupation by the turn of the century; to create greater diversity of choice and supply for those who cannot afford or do not want to be home owners; and to improve both the quality of the housing stock and the lives of the people who live in those homes.
There has been much reference to the high level of unmet need. However, there are no national criteria for housing need or an agreed level of housing need, precisely because it is not possible to define housing need as an

absolute. Estimates of need for social housing in Wales vary widely and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, almost always tend to be overstated.
I was interested in the exchanges between the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) with regard to homelessness figures. The hon. Gentleman accepted that his figures were probably wrong. The difference between my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman meant that the hon. Gentleman could easily be 50 per cent. out. However, that did not seem to matter to him; they were just figures that he could throw up in the air.
I shall set the record straight for the hon. Gentleman. The latest figure for the number of homelessness cases at March 1994 is 2,628. That can be compared with 2,867 in March 1993. As I know that Opposition Members cannot work it out, it is a reduction of 8.3 per cent. The reduction in the number of homelessness cases should be widely welcomed.
Our role in meeting housing need is to set the broad policy framework and encourage local authorities to employ the wide range of options available to address housing need and to make the best use of the resources available to them. Local authorities have a statutory duty to assess housing need in their areas. They are the appropriate organisations to prepare local housing assessments which will provide the context for housing associations and other agencies to plan their strategies and programmes, as well as help to inform the distribution of resources. These assessments provide the basis for authorities' strategic and operational plans, taking account of likely available resources as well as priorities between competing needs and the best use of resources in meeting objectives that are essential for the effective delivery of housing services.
I suppose that I should thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North for the congratulations that he inadvertently gave the Government on their housing record. He specifically congratulated the housing associations in Wales on what they have achieved. However, it is the Government who have massively supported and enabled the housing associations to go forward and achieve all that they have done. In 1989, the Government established Housing for Wales to build on the enthusiasm of housing associations in Wales and to work in partnership with local authorities.
Since Tai Cymru was established, total investment in Welsh housing associations, including that for the current financial year, is in excess of £1 billion, producing almost 22,000 necessary new homes in Wales. In the current financial year, the total resources for Housing for Wales will be about £200 million, which should enable more than 4,000 new homes to be completed.
I remind hon. Members that the introduction of mixed funding has enabled 50 per cent. more homes to be built than under the old system. Housing for Wales is now the main provider of new social rented housing in Wales. It works closely with local authorities, which recognise the benefits that the new mixed funding regime can bring. I am pleased to say that local authorities have transferred almost £70 million to Welsh housing associations in the past five years to provide additional social housing.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) asked me about next year's housing association grant rate. I completely reject the wild prediction made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). He should know, as I


am sure all Opposition Members know, that the question of the housing association grant rate will be considered, as it is always considered, during the normal round of the public expenditure survey.
We will carefully consider all the questions that need to be addressed: whether we should be subsidising bricks and mortar or helping families; and whether we should be providing cheap rents for all, or providing more homes, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) spelt out. All of us would recognise that it is unreasonable to subsidise people who can afford to pay, because that means that people who are deserving will be deprived of necessary housing.
I am pleased to report that strategic housing agreements between Housing for Wales and nine local authorities have been signed since the initiative was introduced in 1991–92. I see that as helping to cement the partnerships and take further forward the excellent relationship that exists between Housing for Wales and local authorities.
We also recognise that an active private rented sector offering a variety of accommodation and tenures is necessary for those who cannot or do not wish to buy their own homes. I found it somewhat ironic that the hon. Member for Torfaen sought to remind us that he was a history graduate. His history seems to have stopped at some time in the past. He certainly does not have much recollection of current affairs. He tried to claim that he was in favour of a variety of housing tenures, including the right for people to rent from the private sector. What his history should have told him is that his party voted against the Housing Act 1988, which did so much to expand the opportunities for the private rented sector.
The number of private rented dwellings in Wales increased from 80,000 in 1990 to 95,000 in 1992. For Opposition Members who cannot do arithmetic, that is an increase of 19 per cent. That is a substantial and worthwhile contribution to expanding the sum of housing available for the people of Wales. We are not content with that. We are going forward with the rent-a-room scheme which was introduced in 1992. Householders no longer have to pay income tax on rent from a lodger if the gross annual rent is less than £3,250. That is a further worthwhile contribution to expanding the sum of housing available in Wales.
Naturally and rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor referred to the needs of housing in rural Wales. To assist authorities to meet particular rural housing pressures, we created the rural housing reserve in 1991–92. Investment over the past three years has totalled nearly £16 million, leading to the production of some 700 homes. In the current financial year, £4 million is available which, together with investment through Housing for Wales, is expected to produce 1,150 homes. Rural authorities also benefit from other central reserves, including renewal, rented private sector and homelessness reserves. I need not remind my hon. Friend that Housing for Wales devotes at least one quarter of its resources to rural housing. Between 1989–90 and 1993–94, investment totalled nearly £240 million, producing nearly 4,700 new homes.
Our final "Agenda for Action" objective is to improve the quality of the housing stock and, of course, of the lives of the people who live in those homes. Much reference has been made to renovation in the debate. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for what he said about the provisions to which my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State referred for the mentally handicapped under community care. This is not the time to expand on that, but we have published our new guidance for the Welsh mental handicap strategy. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find in it exactly the provision that he is looking for and which we are all looking for. It is important that we continue to try to ensure that the right care and choice are available to mentally handicapped individuals and their carers.
Since the current home renovation grant was introduced in 1990, almost £850 million has been made available for home renovation in Wales. That includes for this year £149 million for mandatory renovation grants alone. That is £3.5 million more than last year. It should enable Welsh local authorities to complete some 9,600 grants.
I was interested to note the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North that we should bring clearance and demolition back on to the agenda. While I accept that that is not entirely irrelevant, I feel that we have moved on from the days of widespread clearance, and rightly so, exactly in the way, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that we have put behind us the grey architecture and slab concrete of the socialist past.
In addition to the renovation grants, £26.3 million has been made available to local authorities in each of the past two years for disabled facilities and discretionary grants. The current funding arrangements for disabled facilities grants enable local authorities to consider all housing options, including transfers to more suitable accommodation, in responding to the needs of disabled people.

Dr. Howells: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: I fear I do not have time. I was just about to refer to the hon. Member for Torfaen, who complained that we were not spending enough. Just as his party would not say at the last election, the hon. Gentleman would not say how much he would spend. He brought out that canard about capital receipts, which he then pledged himself to make available. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will be upset when he sees that in the record. I well know the claims that Welsh Labour councils have made that that would mean spending of at least £177 million. It might help the hon. Member for Torfaen, if he rushes off to see his hon. Friend, to say that the local councils will have only £23.7 million to spend from their capital receipts.
I remind the House that grants are also available to landlords to repair and improve or convert houses or buildings into flats and accommodation. We can boast a good record on area-based renewal schemes in Wales: 13 renewal schemes have been declared, and there are more in the pipeline. Resources of more than £17 million will be available in the current year for area-based schemes.
One matter was conspicuous by its absence from the speeches of Opposition Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly concentrated on the fact that the vast majority of people in Wales aspire to home ownership. That is demonstrated by the high take-up of the right-to-buy initiative. More than 100,000 council tenants have exercised the right to buy since 1979. Surveys keep telling us that 80 per cent. or more of the people of Wales want to own their own homes. Opposition Members hardly referred to that at all. Where was the welcome for the progress that has been made in increasing home ownership


from 59 per cent. in 1979 to 71 per cent. now? We recognise and we will continue to respond to the aspirations of the people of Wales for a higher level of home ownership, and we will deliver.
One other idea was conspicuous by its absence in the debate. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North was remarkably brief in referring to an assembly for Wales, although I know that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn went on at slightly more length about it. That ancient, discredited policy from the 1970s has been trotted out as the great idea of all the Opposition policies. Yet we know by the token references that Opposition Members have made to it this evening that they are doing nothing more than going through the motions.
Wales is now better housed. Major sums are being provided for new social ownership and maintenance of existing housing. There are more opportunities for ownership, which is the exact and clear aspiration of the people of Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced today an exciting expansion of the transferable discount scheme in Wales. We are making great progress. At the same time, we continue to ensure that there will be choice—real choice, unlike what the Opposition offer. I am confident that we shall go forward. We shall continue to go forward. The last thing that we in Wales need is that ultimate quango—a Welsh assembly. It has been roundly rejected by the people of Wales before and it will be rejected again if it is ever put to the test.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 153.

Division No. 290]
[7.16 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
McMaster, Gordon


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Meale, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Morgan, Rhodri


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Murphy, Paul


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pendry, Torn


Cox, Tom
Prescott, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Salmond, Alex


Dafis, Cynog
Short, Clare


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Dowd, Jim
Wigley, Dafydd


Henderson, Doug
Wilson, Brian


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)



Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bowis, John


Amess, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Ashby, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burns, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butterfill, John


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carrington, Matthew


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carttiss, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clappison, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Booth, Hartley
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)





Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maitland, Lady Olga


Conway, Derek
Malone, Gerald


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cran, James
Merchant, Piers


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Mills, Iain


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Devlin, Tim
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Duncan, Alan
Moate, Sir Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Nicholls, Patrick


Elletson, Harold
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Patnick, Irvine


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fabricant, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Pickles, Eric


Fishburn, Dudley
Rathbone, Tim


Forman, Nigel
Richards, Rod


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Riddick, Graham


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


French, Douglas
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gallie, Phil
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gardiner, Sir George
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Garnier, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Gillan, Cheryl
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Sims, Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Speed, Sir Keith


Gorst, Sir John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Spink, Dr Robert


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Sproat, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stephen, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Stern, Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan


Hague, William
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Sweeney, Walter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sykes, John


Harris, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hawksley, Warren
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Thomason, Roy


Hendry, Charles
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hicks, Robert
Tredinnick, David


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Viggers, Peter


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Walden, George


Jenkin, Bernard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Jessel, Toby
Waterson, Nigel


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Watts, John


Kilfedder, Sir James
Wells, Bowen


Kirkhope, Timothy
Whittingdale, John


Knapman, Roger
Willetts, David


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Wilshire, David


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Wood, Timothy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


Legg, Barry
Mr. David Lightbown and


Lidington, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


MacKay, Andrew

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on its comprehensive housing policies to meet the needs and aspirations of the people of Wales; welcomes in particular the high and increasing level of home ownership in Wales; supports measures to promote wider home ownership; notes the high level of investment by Tai Cymru since 1989 which has exceeded £1 billion and produced nearly 22,000 homes; welcomes the attraction of substantial private funding to the housing association programme enabling greater diversity and choice; and rejects the call for the establishment of a Parliament for Wales which would create an unnecessary tier of Government and would waste resources.

Social Security Benefit Rights

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
That this House would fully restore social security benefit rights to all 16 and 17 year olds.
I was slightly surprised this afternoon when a message was received in our office which suggested that I speak as long as I like because there would be a dearth of other contributors to the subject. That reflects seriously on aspects of the policies of the other Opposition parties and on Government policy, because the issue is serious and affects many young people and families throughout of the United Kingdom.
I attach great importance to this aspect of social security legislation. It would not be amiss to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when you and I were 16 or 17 years old, we were living in the 1960s, when it seemed to young people that the world was their oyster. There were job opportunities in abundance and many of us, irrespective of background, could go to university, further or higher education, guaranteed a full student grant, and could find summer jobs with ease to eke out that grant. Those were very opportune times for many of us.
I am deeply concerned about what is happening to young people throughout the United Kingdom today. Our young people should be filled with optimism and idealism. But instead we seem to have a society where many of our youngsters feel that they are in a dead-end. They feel alienated from the democratic process and downtrodden, and the world no longer seems to be the oyster which we envisaged in the 1960s. It now appears to be a shark—often a loan shark.
In moving the motion, I shall quote several figures which I think are of relevance. [Interruption.] I note that there is an element of disrespect from the Government Whips and others on the Treasury Bench, but these are serious figures which should be taken into account.
Figures drawn up by Shelter, for example, show that one in four of Scotland's unemployed is between the ages of 16 and 25. Training allowances for 16 and 17-year-olds have not been uprated since 1989. In September 1992, a careers service survey showed that only one training place for every 26 young people was available if they were registered with that service, although I am sure that the Minister will argue about the importance that is attached to training schemes.
I shall quote from the Social Security Advisory Committee, which said:
The YT guarantee is not being delivered in full and, without such a guarantee, the absence of a right to continuing entitlement to Income Support can leave vulnerable young people with no visible legal means of support… If the general exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from Income Support were removed, those in genuine need would be able to access Income Support quickly in the normal way.
The reality is, of course, that those young people cannot access income support in the normal way. Forty-five per cent. of young people staying in emergency accommodation had previously slept rough. [Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would listen to the statistics. He is busy

talking to somebody else, but I wish he would listen because the statistics are important and merit the attention of the House and of hon. Members who are present.
My colleagues from Plaid Cymru have spoken on the issue of homelessness. That is a very serious issue, because if people have neither a job nor a home, what kind of hope is there for them? Last year, 14,000 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland were out of employment, and it was estimated that 75 per cent. of them had no income whatsoever.
Throughout Britain, 122,500 16 and 17-year-olds were defined as jobless and, of those, 90,400 had no source of income. The reality is that 75 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds who are out of work have no source of income. They have no opportunity in society to find themselves a home or a job, and they have no income whatsoever. I suggest that the Government are driving them into despair.
In 1988, the Government removed the benefit from young people. No doubt the Minister's response—which has been presumably written for him in a departmental brief—will emphasise that income support is available in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. George Kynoch: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Ewing: I notice the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside's comment. No doubt he is, as always, looking for promotion within the Government. May I remind him of those exceptional circumstances?
A 16 or 17-year-old might have access to income support if he is a parent, in physical or moral danger or if he is handicapped. That covers a small percentage of the number of people we are talking about and, of course, the bureaucracy ensures that many of the people who might be eligible in those circumstances do not apply. We will never know how many people do not apply for income support in exceptional circumstances; nor will we know the numbers who have been rejected.
No doubt the Minister will talk about the severe hardship allowance as a safety net established by the Government. Originally that was introduced as a stop-gap measure for young people, but it has now become a mainstay provision. In the first 12 months of the existence of the severe hardship allowance, 10,669 successful applications were recorded.
Let me remind the House of the mechanisms that young people have to go through to be succesful. A young person who wants to make a claim for income support under the severe hardship provision must register at the careers office and take his proof of registration to the unemployment benefit office. The unemployment benefit office will then issue the young person with a form to take to the local Benefits Agency office, where he will be interviewed. There are three offices through which any young person seeking that mechanism of support must pass.
In the four years since then, the numbers have increased sevenfold. That is an indication of the crisis that exists. I also link that with the issue of homelessness, because that is a major aspect of the problems that young people face.
The Scottish Council for Homelessness says clearly that one of the greatest problems that young people face is homelessness. It argues that we need to restore the claim to income support to 16 and 17-year-olds and ensure a single rate of income support for all those who are living independently, regardless of age.
Much has been made of the cardboard cities and the homeless in London, but it happens in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Stirling and any town within Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. What kind of life are we holding out to those young people? The attitude struck by the Government comes close to being criminal.
It will be interesting to learn what other hon. Members say in the debate, and there is a moral issue at stake for all of us as legislators. I started by saying that when you and I were 16 or 17, Madam Deputy Speaker, the world seemed to be full of opportunities. For many people now, the world is not full of opportunities. Young people throughout the United Kingdom are left in desperation, despair and hopelessness.
We have costed in our budget what it would cost to restore benefits to young people in Scotland, and we reckon it would cost £23 million. I believe that that would be £23 million well spent. It would enable young people to have dignity and the decency of an independent life.
I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who sit on the Opposition Benches: what exactly is the Labour party saying to 16 and 17-year-olds? Much play was made during the European elections of the Prime Minister's attack on beggars, people sleeping rough and people who have not had any other opportunity in life.
Yet when the Labour party was asked about what it would do, there were four different replies in one day. The acting leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), confused the issue when she said that there must be "good quality training" and "some assistance", but she refused to say what form that would take. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) intervened, saying on Radio 4's "World At One" programme:
If more money is required that will have to be considered… The major point is that we are not going to be passive and simply criticise the results of present policy.
But no indication was given of what position the hon. Gentleman would adopt as shadow Secretary for Social Security on that issue.
Labour's Treasury Spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said that the Labour party would announce detailed plans "nearer the time" of a Labour Government. That, perhaps, was very optimistic from her point of view, because whether there will be a Labour Government is for the people to decide.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said:
'The benefits to the young, in particular, equalled the benefits in most of Europe.
Yet the reality is that 16 and 17-year-olds in the U.K. do not have equality with their counterparts in Europe. Not only the Government but the official Opposition face the challenge of reviewing their policies towards 16 and 17-year-olds. The Opposition must come clean tonight on their policy. My party has made it clear that it will reinstate the benefit; we have costed it and it is within our budget. It is an important aspect of our policy.
There is an element within the House that does not understand the strength of feeling and passion within our communities about young people. Many hon. Members, particularly from Scottish constituencies, spent the past few weeks campaigning in the Monklands, East

by-election. People regularly said on their doorsteps that they were deeply concerned about what was happening to youngsters in our society. From time to time, we talk about the problems of drugs, crime and deprivation, yet it is in our hands to ensure that money is made available to young people to ensure that they do not fall into those traps.
We must make clear our commitments, because principled guidance exists in our politics. I find it strange when I pick up The Herald and find that it carries the headline
Blair accuses Tories of stealing Labour policies
The newspaper reported:
Tony Blair yesterday accused the Conservatives of getting ready to steal some of his party's clothes on employment and social policies.
On the same page, under the headline
Lang cautions against 'one more right turn'
the newspaper reported:
In fending off the challenges of a revitalised Labour party, which he accused of stealing Conservative policies in their quest for office, the Conservative party had to deal with voters wanting change.
It seems weird to me that one party, the official Opposition, is accusing the Government of stealing their policies while the Government are accusing the other party of stealing their policies. Do we intend to address the issues that confront our society or are we just going to sit back and let 16 and 17-year-olds become the victims of unionist policies? I am not going to take any lectures from members of the Labour party in particular, but from any member of any unionist party about Santa Claus policies. The sum of £23 million is a small in comparison with the problems involved.
My party is totally committed, if the other parties are not, to the idea of social justice in our society. We will ensure that that is offered to young people as well. That policy will not be assimilated by the rather exclusive nonsense of the London parties, which seek power for themselves rather than power for the people.
My party believes that the packaging of the Labour party and of the Government are exactly the same—they just try to label it differently. I want to hear clearly from both of those parties tonight exactly what they will do for 16 and 17-year-olds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises that vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds and those facing severe hardship continue to have access to benefits; believes that it is in the long term interests of 16 and 17 year olds that they do not go straight from school on to benefits, but into training, employment or further or higher education; and fully endorses the Government's training guarantee and the continued expansion of vocational, further and higher education.'.
I ask my colleagues to vote for the Government's amendment.
For the past 15 minutes, I have felt like an innocent bystander at the clash of the tartan armies, because the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) were intended for consumption in an internal argument north of the border rather than to address the issues that should concern the House tonight.
The hon. Lady was a little ratty with me earlier when I was having a discussion with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security


about a matter she had raised. I suspect that that was due to her chronic insecurity at being alone, at that time, on her Bench. No matter that the issue we are discussing is of great importance; alas, the sense of that importance was not shared at that time by her colleagues. I am delighted to see that the leader of the Scottish nationalists, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has arrived and I should be delighted to give way to him.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I was absent because I was on St. Stephen's green giving an interview on the future of Rosyth. Given that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting next to the Minister, perhaps he could use this opportunity to enlighten us rather more than the Prime Minister was prepared to do when my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked him a question about it this afternoon. Is Rosyth naval base to close, which will mean that more job opportunities will be lost for young people and others in Scotland?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the motion is narrowly drawn.

Mr. Burt: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is: good try. I am sure that that does not relieve the sense of insecurity that his hon. Friend felt at the beginning of her speech.
I was also delighted to listen to the hon. Lady's remarks about who is stealing whose clothes—whether the Labour party is stealing the Tories' clothes or the Tories are stealing Labour's clothes. All that is obvious is that no one is stealing the hon. Lady's clothes or those of her party, so it would appear that the paucity of her remarks tonight is reflected in her party's other policies. That is why no one wishes to steal them.
I should like to address the real issues, which are genuine and important. That is why I am surrounded by a number of my colleagues who share my interest in this subject.

Mrs. Ewing: Two thirds of my party are present.

Mr. Burt: Two thirds of nothing is nothing.
I accept that the motion tabled by the hon. Lady may be based on the best of intentions, but it is just one more example of how the Opposition parties fail to see how policy towards young people must be rather more than just a knee-jerk back to benefits.
Our policy is the only real one on offer. It is about education and training for young people, and developing a positive approach to life in a highly competitive world market economy. It is about helping young people fulfil their potential so they can live independent and productive lives. It is about the United Kingdom as a whole; Scots as much as anyone else.
If young people aged 16 and 17 are not yet in work, we offer them real options: Scottish highers and A-levels—as good as anything comparable anywhere in the world; general and national vocational qualifications, building up our vocational skills base; and youth training, also usually leading to NVQ level 2, which delivers a wide variety of courses to a wide range of abilities. All those options carry with them financial support in one way or another, either from the parents of those at school, employers or the youth

training allowance. Those options are available to all young people; young women as well as young men and members of any minority group.
Given all this, I have to ask what is the point of reintroducing income support for 16 and 17-year-olds. All those not in employment, such as young mothers, are entitled to claim income support as of right already. So who would gain and what would be the effect if this apparently generous motion were actually put into effect? I suspect that, in terms of welfare, which presumably is the intended justification, the answer is "not much".

Mrs. Ewing: Would the Minister like to give us the latest training figures on the basis of how many people who apply for YT opportunities are offered places?

Mr. Burt: According to the figures for Scotland, there are more vacancies for YT places than there are people ready to take them up. At the end of the last monthly count, some 4,000 places were still vacant according to local enterprise companies. I do not believe that there is any doubt about the improved efforts of the Government and those who assist them to fulfil the YT guarantee.
If benefit were restored, a majority of those in education and training would continue as they do now, and be supported as they are now. Those waiting for a place on a YT scheme could claim for a short time while they waited, but those in severe hardship can claim now, as they could in the future. As a result of the motion, extra money would be given to some young people, many of whom will be from relatively well-off backgrounds living at home with their parents. From a welfare point of view, the measure would be ineffective.
What is worse, it would encourage those with less commitment to think they can give up their school, their course, their employer training and live on benefit. A wholly negative and inappropriate effect. During the mid-1980s, when the economy was moving ahead rapidly and unemployment falling—a look back, perhaps, to the halcyon time in her youth about which the hon. Member for Moray talked—claims from school leavers remained at a high level. That is an indication of the effect that easy benefit access can have. Perhaps even more significant, 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school would be able to go straight on to benefits with no incentive to do more. That gives exactly the wrong message and represents a sharp step away from the attitudes we should be trying to foster in this House.
Anything that undermines our skills effort in this way is a serious matter. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund have said that the United Kingdom is set to have the fastest growth of any major economy this year and next. This growth will be reflected in Scotland. Unemployment has been falling and employment rising—26 per cent. of employers expect to increase the number of jobs on offer this summer, the most optimistic figure for four years.
Especially important in the context of this debate is the forecast by the independent Institute for Employment Research that the number of jobs at technician level and above is expected to rise by 1.6 million during the 1990s. If we can educate and train our young people, the jobs will be there; and we will ensure that that education and training are available.
Our overall approach to unemployment and economic regeneration was recently highlighted by the OECD as the best way forward. The active policies that we are pursuing to help the unemployed were singled out in particular. We will not give up now on what is one part of a successful and coherent set of policies.
The future demands better educated young people, and young people are recognising that it is in their interests to get those qualifications. In 1992–93, 70 per cent. of 16-year-olds stayed on in full-time education—a 70 per cent. increase over 1979.
General national vocational qualifications have made an exciting start and are proving very popular. Action is in hand to ensure that they are rigorous and of high quality. They develop skills, knowledge and understanding in a broadly vocational context. We expect successful GNVQ students to go on to higher education and good jobs. NVQs—covering 80 per cent. of the work force—have now been accredited and will increasingly offer a firm basis for most job-specific training.
We have substantially improved the educational information and advice available, which allows young people to make informed choices about the school or college and type of course that best meet their needs. The local education authority, via the careers service, provides statutory vocational guidance and planning services for young people. Again, the publication of performance tables for schools and colleges has been an important step and now includes vocational qualifications.
Those steps should help us achieve a further aim—increasing the number of young people who continue to develop their knowledge and skills after their 16th birthday. The number has risen rapidly over the past few years—more than 20 per cent. since 1979, so that 87 per cent. of 16-year-olds are now in some form of education and training. The target is 91 per cent. by 1995–96, and funding to the further education sector allows for a 25 per cent. growth in the numbers of their students from 1993–96. What a contrast to offer such a positive future, rather than turning back and offering our young people a future of benefits.
Training is the other arm of our success story. The quality of training is improving rapidly. The Government are committed to ensuring that young people not in work or at school will have a greater range of choice through youth credits, and the opportunity to become better equipped with high-quality skills and qualifications. That will be achieved through the introduction of modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships, which will provide high-quality, work-based training to NVQ level 3 for 16 to 17-year-olds. To enhance further the range of options available for young people, accelerated modern apprenticeships will also be available for 18 to 19-year-olds. The modern apprenticeship initiative should result in some 70,000 young people achieving NVQ level 3 or higher each year.
Youth training NVQs are a valuable step towards higher standards and there is evidence that young people are taking increasing advantage of the opportunities that we provide. The much higher standards now required by employers are resulting in many more higher level

qualifications. For example, the proportion of all leavers gaining an NVQ qualification rose from 38 per cent. for leavers in 1990–91 to 67 per cent. in 1993–94.
In Scotland, our training policies have been centred on the creation of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, with their unique remit to bring together training and economic development, and have produced good results for young people in recent years. In the Scottish Enterprise area, total vocational qualifications gained by trainees in youth training have risen by 50 per cent. from 7,015 in 1991–92 to 10,443 in 1993–94; there has been a 24 per cent. increase in achievement in youth training of vocational qualifications at levels 2 and 3, from 6,621 in 1991–92 to 8,211 in 1993–94; and the proportion of young people with employed status in youth training has risen over the same period from 25 to 41 per cent.

Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister for giving us those statistics, but is he familiar with the statistic from Shelter, which estimates that last year, 5,000 young people slept rough in Scotland at some time? Will he explain why, in this land of opportunity that he is outlining to us, 5,000 youngsters in Scotland slept rough last year?

Mr. Burt: We shall come to benefits and the safety and security of young people a little later. In contrast to the speech of the hon. Member for Moray, I was offering a picture of how measures taken by the Government to improve education and training opportunities for young people were being accepted and taken forward. That is a much more positive picture than the hon. Lady was painting.

Mr. Salmond: Answer my question.

Mr. Burt: I shall come to the subject of benefits later. As the hon. Gentleman was late arriving, he can wait for me to come to his question a bit later.
Even better results have been achieved in the Grampian Enterprise area, where youth credits pilots have been running for three years. Here, training starts have almost doubled and the vast majority of trainees have employed status and are working towards a vocational qualification. Indeed, attainment levels among young people in Scotland generally are such that the Advisory Scottish Council for Education and Training Targets has launched challenging new Scottish targets for competitiveness to replace the 1991 national education and training targets.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken over responsibility for training policy in Scotland with effect from 1 April. He will work within our overall Great British strategy, published in December last as "Prosperity through Skills", but now has the opportunity to adjust and develop aspects of policy to reflect Scotland's distinctive institutional arrangements and levels of attainment.
My right hon. Friend is now reflecting on such adjustments and on the content of a package of training measures comparable in resource terms to that announced for England and Wales in the competitiveness White Paper. It is too soon to say what the package will include, but a number of areas are being looked at, including apprenticeship training and the guidance needs of young people.
The Government are also committed to making the YT guarantee work. The hon. Lady mentioned that matter. We are spending more on youth training this year than last; and


in 1993–94, we spent £849 million, which is an advance on the previous year. In the future, we shall spend more per trainee. Broadly the same budget that covered 210,000 first-time entrants to the programme in 1990–91 will cover about 160,000 first-time entrants—more than 25 per cent. Fewer—in 1993–94. So, in spite of falling numbers in that age group, we are not only maintaining our investment in their future but increasing it.
We also recognise the practical importance of linking the training with employers. Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise councils in Scotland have conducted marketing campaigns to generate more employer-based training places; funded new workshop and initial training provision; and offered subsidies to offset employer costs of training places. And for trainees with special training needs, additional funds have been provided.
However, there will always be some people unable to take advantage of these opportunities, either in the long term or short term, and who need the help of the benefits system.
In 1988, we substituted the youth training allowance for supplementary benefit for unemployed young people. That was a sign of our commitment to invest in the future of young people and help them make the most of their potential, which is a stark contrast with the proposals apparently put forward by the Opposition's Commission on Social Justice. Their proposal seems to be that we should pay more money for less work with no end product in terms of training or qualification.
One of the most important policy aims of our programme was to ensure that those young people who could not take advantage of youth training, either through having to look after their child or because they were disabled or vulnerable for some other reason, were protected. We took great care to ensure that those vulnerable groups retained entitlement to income support at any time.
Since then, we have extended the length of time that child benefit could be payable by up to 16 weeks after the young person had left school. That enabled parents to continue to receive not only child benefit but other benefits such as dependant's allowances and family premium while their children looked for work or YT places or, indeed, waited to go back to school or on to college at the end of the summer.
In addition, where young people cannot stay at home to grow up in a stable and caring environment, we have given automatic entitlement to income support while they are in secondary education. Most important, we completed the safety net for vulnerable youngsters by introducing the severe hardship provision. That enables support to be given at any time to those in particularly difficult circumstances. To guarantee maximum flexibility, we made decisions under that provision discretionary. Each case is judged on its merits and, where there is a risk of severe hardship, benefit will be paid, normally until a job or training place is found.
Help can be given under that provision to young people irrespective of whether they are homeless, living independently or living with parents who are having difficulty supporting them, so help is targeted to where the need exists. Our monitoring shows that help is reaching those who need it.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister accept that those discretionary payments must be backdated because of the nature of the award, so a young person in critical, emergency circumstances must apply for a social fund loan? Would not it be better if those youngsters received automatic payments without the backdating that leaves them in that vulnerable position for a period of time?

Mr. Burt: Having visited the Glasgow unit that deals with that when I was first appointed, I am immensely impressed with the speed with which severe hardship provisions are dealt with. It is probably the benefit with the fastest turn-around, and I suspect that in very few cases are people who need a severe hardship payment turned away or given a length of time to wait.
More important, as the hon. Lady knows, quoting the statistics, we are making more severe hardship awards than we did. We paid 118,000 young people under the provision in 1993–94, and we are currently dealing with about 11,000 claims a month, with a success rate of nearly 90 per cent.
I know something about that, too, because, when I was first appointed, I received representations from lobby groups representing young people throughout the country, and one of the things that worried them was the availability of severe hardship awards. Not only did it appear to be a difficult route to follow, but there was insufficient information about who was, and who was not, entitled to receive benefit. There was a widespread belief that one could not obtain that benefit when one was living at home.
I worked very hard, personally, with the lobby groups to explain that that was not necessary. We developed a new leaflet to publicise to young people's advisers that benefit would be payable even if the young people were living at home, if their parents were on benefit and they could not manage.
We took steps to ensure that that information would be made available in the places where youngsters go. We took steps in the Benefits Agency offices to ensure that one person in each office would be responsible for 16 and 17-year-olds, and that that person would develop expertise and skill in dealing with them and dealing smoothly and rapidly with the complaint. We ensured that the benefit was more widely available. The same criteria had to be met as previously to ensure that someone was eligible, but efforts were made to ensure that those people who were in need had the best opportunity of obtaining it.
I regard the increased figures as a reflection of the efforts that we took to make the benefit more widely available. I think that we did the right thing.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am interested in what the Minister says, and I think that there is some truth in it. Things have changed—there is no doubt about that, for reasons that I may refer to later. However, does he recognise what an indictment it is of the original quality of the arrangements, and of the continuing claim that there is a guarantee to every youth, that there should be 11,000 claims a month for severe hardship, 90 per cent. of which succeed? How does that square with the idea that every one of those youngsters was guaranteed a training place in the first place?

Mr. Burt: They are guaranteed a training place and, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, the ability of the YT guarantee system to produce places has improved


markedly in the past year. On the most recent figures, I think that we are down now to about 1,800 or 1,900 people who are left waiting for more than eight weeks—that is all.
A variety of different situations can give rise to a youngster feeling that he or she needs to make that claim. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Wilson: Neither can you.

Mr. Burt: No. What we say is—[Interruption.]—No. I do not believe that is true. The guarantee does work. We have an enormous of number of people in youth training places now. As I said, the figures for Scotland show that there are youth training place vacancies.
For a number of reasons, people might fall vulnerable and need severe hardship allowance. We make it available and have it as a safety net, but if no one was receiving it, I dare say that, as my colleagues appreciate, Opposition Members would argue that the benefit is so difficult to obtain that no one can claim it. Because we have taken genuine steps—I was grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—to try to make it more available to people in need, the hon. Gentleman criticised us because people actually take it up. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways.
We continue to monitor the arrangements closely and we have every intention of making further improvements where necessary, although we need to see how the job seeker's allowance will operate before making any further moves.
In conclusion, the Government have no plans to restore a blanket of income support to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Mr. Salmond: I have been listening carefully to the Minister, and I still have not received an answer to my very simple question. Why, in spite of the picture of a world of opportunity that the Minister has been painting, with all those improved schemes, does Shelter estimate that 5,000 Scottish youngsters slept rough at some time last year? It is a simple question. The hon. Gentleman is reaching the end of his speech. May I have an answer?

Mr. Burt: As I said earlier—when perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not quite concentrating—there is a variety of reasons why people might find themselves in need of severe hardship provisions. I am convinced that there is absolutely no reason why any single youngster should be on the streets of Scotland tonight. Assistance is available from the Government for benefit and for need. The numbers of people who might sleep rough on the street in any one night are hundreds rather than thousands. It is a matter of regret to all of us, but the hon. Gentleman knows of the variety of circumstances that lead people to be there, from the various surveys that are done.
The Government have played their part, by making resources available and pursuing initiatives to try to help find homes for single people. Statutory responsibility rests with housing authorities. They should review their policies and priorities to ensure that they deal effectively with the problems that confront homeless and roofless people.
However, being responsible for severe hardship allowance, knowing the way in which it has been applied in the past couple of years and knowing the efforts being made by hard-working and well-meaning staff to ensure

that it is available for those who need it, I do not believe that anyone who is genuinely in need would be refused that benefit. The success rate of 90 per cent. shows that.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Minister, and I shall quote figures later that bear out what he said and show what an enormous change there has been in the way that severe hardship applications are treated, but the Minister should reciprocally recognise what a brutal policy that was in the first place, and what astonishing cruelty was visited on tens of thousands of young people before those changes took place. Those young people could not apply for severe hardship payments, and, as a result, they were cast thoughtlessly on to the streets.

Mr. Burt: No. Once again, with the great gift that seems to affect people who sit on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Gentleman is able completely to misinterpret what I said.
The benefit has always been available and could always have been applied for. My feeling, as perhaps one of the least brutal Ministers that the hon. Gentleman might come across—it is not my style—was that I saw a benefit that was available, about which the original intention of Government was entirely correct, but which, for some reason, was not working through to the people who needed it. That is part of the job.
Opposition Members constantly ask the Government about eligibility for benefits and the need to ensure that those people who are eligible can claim. Those Members speak about claimants' campaigns and everything else. I saw a position in which the benefit was there, in which people were in need and lobby groups would come to me and say, "I think this should be available, but I can't seem to get it and no one knows about it," and so on. I said, "It is there, and it can be done." Other people simply did not know that the benefit was available because they had not gone and obtained the information, and the information was not disseminated. So we worked to do that.
For me, that completed the circle. One has a Government who are offering, in a growing, expanding economy, jobs, training, further and higher education, which are being accepted by more youngsters than ever before. One has a positive picture for youngsters and, in addition, one has two safety nets—a safety net in statute for the vulnerable and a safety net through severe hardship benefit for others who have slipped through for any other reason. I think that that is the complete picture.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the benefit was available freely to all, I had a large number of complaints from parents in my constituency whose daughters were staying on at school after 16, saying that they were shacked up in Morecambe with their boyfriends at the expense of the Department of Social Security? That was the type of thing that the Minister rightly has prevented from happening.

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right and, indeed, as I mentioned earlier, there was a culture that, no matter what one's family background, if one was in a position to claim benefit, one did, whether one needed it or not. At the same time as politicians were walking the streets, urging people to ensure that their taxes were well spent, they were covering a position in which there was widespread misuse and no one wanted to do anything about it.
We ended that, I think, and I think that removing automatic entitlement to benefit for all 16 and 17-year-olds and replacing it with a system whereby we encouraged them to do their best, encouraged them to take advantage of the opportunities that we then increasingly made available, to improve their opportunities for jobs and skills in the future, was the best way forward. I still believe that, and I also still believe that we have protected the most vulnerable people and ensured that they do not slip through the net.
We have no plans to restore a blanket of income support for 16 and 17-year-olds. To do so would be to concentrate on the wrong area and would be poor targeting of resources. It is far better to invest in high-quality training than to provide benefit for people who are not looking for work or training, thus encouraging unnecessary reliance on the benefit system.
Instead, we are concentrating our efforts on more positive and productive policies, such as improving the education system to cater for young people's needs and abilities, and encouraging young people to make the most of their potential through education or training. We are providing good-quality training places to equip young people with the skills that they need to enter work and build successful careers. Those are the best ways for young people to begin to lead independent and productive lives.
The hon. Member for Moray spoke of young people being independent through having automatic entitlement to benefits. What sort of independence is it when one is dependent on other people? It is far better that we encourage young people to be truly independent and to have the skills that they need for the future. It is better for us to provide that so that they can participate in a growing and positive future.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I always enjoy listening to the Minister. We play in the parliamentary football team together—I think that he plays inside left. However, what worries me is that the longer the Minister works in the Department of Social Security, the more like his boss he becomes. That is an alarming prospect, particularly for the Minister.
The intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) suggested that such mischievous prejudice promotes and fires Tory youth policy, which is shocking. It is a slur on young people to pretend that one can build a policy around so many prejudices when young people are looking not for a dependency culture, which the Government wean them on, but real opportunities. Those opportunities were not mentioned in the Minister's contribution today.
The subject is important because young Scots face a crisis, and their predicament is mirrored throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. An important process is at work. The youngsters of 16, 17 and 18 are making the transition from school to work—they are being integrated into society. The transition from childhood to adulthood should also be a transition from dependency on parents and others to independence. Such an important process shapes the formative years of virtually every youngster in Britain, but the Government have shocking policies to deal with it. It is vital that the Government take seriously all facets of the process.
The main question in today's debate is why young people in Britain are being sold short by a Conservative Government. No society, no Government and no political party can take the matter lightly. What happens in those critical two years can influence the nature and lives of young people. Equally important, it can influence the nature and lives of the wider community, so we must take the subject seriously. The Minister's comments smacked more of a smokescreen than of concern for the deep-seated problems in Britain.
The subject of benefits and financial support for young people is important. There is a crucial distinction between the old-fashioned policies of the nationalists and the prejudiced policies of the Tories. The Labour party wants opportunities for young people. We want to move the culture further on—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) is, as usual, mouthing from the Back Benches, and saying that the Tories are for freedom, choice and independence. If that is true, why has the number of people on income support in Scotland, as compared with the number of people who were on the old supplementary benefit, increased by 88 per cent? Some 1 million Scots are living on the breadline because of the Tory Government. Does that suggest independence or greater dependency?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman was talking about different sorts of policies. What is the policy of the Labour party? As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, there is no Labour party policy.

Mr. McLeish: We shall never be disappointed with the Conservatives. We have the old alliance—

Mr. Burt: Answer.

Mr. McLeish: I shall answer. We have the old alliance between the Conservatives and the nationalists. The party of nationalism thrives on the back of Conservatives, who fear that the nationalists might desert them in difficult times.
I shall now explain Labour party policy. The position is clear: the Conservative party is the party of dependency. No matter what Conservatives claim, every fact suggests the opposite of what they say. I shall give the figures later to outline that point. I shall make Labour's position clear—I see that everyone is now sitting up. A Labour Government will ensure that there will be no young Scots, or anyone else in Britain, without a place in mainstream education, a place in further or higher education, a place in work with training, a training place or a form of income.
We must move the debate away from the old, tired view of dependency to talk about giving young people opportunities.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: I am being assaulted from all sides. I shall give way in a minute.
Unlike the present Government, we shall give young people the benefit of training opportunities. The best policy is to take young people seriously, not constantly to steep the argument in dependency.

Mrs. Ewing: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, particularly in the light of the alliances that he and his party have had with the


Conservative party over many years, including those in Tayside and in other regions of Scotland. They show where the Labour party stands. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party is committed to ensuring that benefits will be available to 16 and 17-year-olds at an uprated level? Is he prepared to give that financial commitment tonight on behalf of his party ?

Mr. McLeish: I will not take lectures from a party of protest when Labour is preparing to be a party of power. Will the financial commitment of the Scottish National party to Scotland's young people come after the funding of a separate Scottish army, separate Scottish navy and separate Scottish air force? It is vital not to get sidetracked by such issues.
A Labour Government will ensure that no young Scot is without a job, a training place, a place in education—higher, further or mainstream—or a form of income. That is crystal clear to me.

Mr. Burt: For those of us who are dimmer and have not quite got hold of what the hon. Gentleman said, may I ask him to repeat it and make it clear? Is he saying that there will be an automatic entitlement to income support for all 16 and 17-year-olds under a Labour Government—yes or no?

Mr. McLeish: I am surprised that the Minister should criticise himself as being dim, and I do not accept that he is. I shall clarify my remarks still further. I anticipated that the issue would rouse the sleeping partners on the Government Benches. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party said:
Labour's priority is to make sure all young people get work, or good quality training. But if they cannot there must be some assistance—we are looking at these issues through the Social Justice Commission at the moment.
That is the important issue that develops the debate.

Mr. Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my intellectual capabilities. Will he comment on a quote from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)? She said:
If you're asking us what our plans will be on day one of a Labour Government, obviously we'll have to make the detailed plans nearer the time".
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that view of Labour party policy—which we think is closer to the truth—has been overridden by what he has said? The hon. Gentleman has still not said whether automatic entitlement to income support for 16 and 17-year-olds is to be restored. Will he answer yes or no?

Mr. McLeish: The Minister clarifies the point himself, by talking about drawing up detailed plans at a more appropriate time—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Retreat!

Mr. McLeish: There is no need for retreat, and I suspect that the Minister is now clear on the point that I have been trying to make, so we can move on to more important matters.
It is vital not to let the debate get bogged down in the Tory agenda. The dependency culture has always been alive and well under this Government, yet they seem to want to keep on talking about it—because as soon as they

move to training or education they are on shaky ground. What is actually happening in Scotland certainly does not square with the Minister's speech this evening.
The self-worth of our young people is crucial both to society and to their sense of well-being. They want to work, as the Minister would agree. What is more, they want to be trained and educated. They want to be successful, to build up careers and to start families.
The problem with keeping the debate at a superficial level is that we may overlook the fact that young people are facing severe difficulties at a time of massive social, economic and employment adjustment. The labour market is changing. The Minister may say that a recovery is in progress, but looking around Scotland it is difficult to see where the jobs are being created. The Government's own quarterly employment figures show very little growth in employment. Young people now have fewer opportunities in the labour market, and it is changing qualitatively too. It is very difficult for them to break into it and—despite the rhetoric about skills—mass deskilling in much of our manufacturing base is also going on.
The Government do not talk about apprenticeships these days. Although they have introduced a new concept using that name, they do not collect the figures any more. We know that there has been a massive reduction in the number of quality training places in manufacturing. Apprenticeships in my constituency were often the avenue of progress for many young Scots.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) highlighted the problems of homelessness in Scotland, but the Government will not acknowledge that the nature and structure of families are changing. There are hon. Members on both sides who want to moralise about that, but the hard facts, meanwhile, have to be dealt with in public policy development. I refer to the linking of homelessness with family breakdown and other family difficulties. All this is part of the changing culture of Scotland and of Britain, and it reinforces my point about treating issues affecting 16 and 17-year-olds with sensitivity.
There is mass unemployment in Scotland. Even on Government figures—manipulated and altered 30 times in 15 years—nearly 3 million people in Britain and 250,000 Scots are out of work. What kind of environment does that offer young people? When I was 16 or 17—or when the Minister was, come to that—we could choose from quite a large number of jobs. There was no housing problem either, and probably no difficulty with finding training. Now, mass unemployment has changed everything. I must tell the House with some passion that bright, dedicated youngsters in my constituency who want to work are painstakingly looking for work, but in Fife there were only 18 vacancies, at the last count, registered at the careers service. I appreciate that they were not the only vacancies available, but looking for work is a soul-destroying business nowadays.

Mr. Kynoch: How does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that the unemployment rate among those under 25 in the United Kingdom in April 1994 was 5 percentage points better—that is to say, lower—than the average rate in the European Union? Is he aware that a recession has been going on around the world, and that the policies of this Government have generated greater employment and prospects for our young people?

Mr. McLeish: In the world that I inhabit, in my constituency, those sort of comments do not square with the facts of life. We can talk about differences between European nations, but the figures are compiled differently —[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may hum and haw all he likes, but he clearly does not want to hear the answer. The Italian and Spanish figures show up significant differences for this age group, but the figures are compiled quite differently. What matters is that young people in my constituency want jobs and are little interested in what happens elsewhere. We should therefore dispense with bogus analogies that do not stand up to examination.
Another point about unemployment is that youngsters are trading down their expectations, and that is bad for their sense of self-worth. Young people in my constituency who have qualifications are doing jobs that require none, and those who have been doing jobs that needed no qualifications are doing no work at all. That depresses them, and it should give us cause for concern.
Another problem derives from people's attitudes to young people—a point emphasised by the intervention from the hon. Member for Lancaster. People have their prejudices and then build them into sweeping generalisations, which can then sometimes motivate public policy. I do not believe that young people in Britain have changed, but they are surrounded by great change, and we have a Government who have walked away from facing up to the consequences of that change.
I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is here for the debate. Ministers often talk about youth unemployment. I have with me some figures from the Department of Employment computer which have not been published. They show that, at the last count, nearly 10,000 young Scots were classified as unemployed but not included in the official figures. Why not? The Government believe in an opportunity-led, laissez-faire, free-market Scotland, so perhaps they can explain the discrepancy in the figures.
I have another question for the Minister. Unpublished figures from the Scottish Office show that, on 14 March 1994, 7,831 young Scots were eligible for youth training, 5,551 were covered by the guarantee, but 5,428 were without a start date. How does that fit in with the central proposition by the Secretary of State for Employment, who speaks eloquently about only 150 young people in England and Wales not having had their requirements met by the guarantee? If that number is right, why is the number 5,500 in Scotland?
The hon. Member for Moray also discussed the severe hardship allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has already pointed out that the benefit is widely available and its take-up is being increased, but that many young Scots, not because they are in desperate hardship but just because they need the money to live on, are applying for it. If the Government view the benefit in that light, why cannot they take a more enlightened view of the whole question of financial underpinning for young people? Figures supplied by the Department—an excellent Department it is—suggest that between 500 and 600 young people each quarter are applying in my constituency for the allowance. Multiplied by a factor of 15, we arrive at a crude figure for the whole of Scotland of about 8,000 applications for the SHA.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is approaching a point at the heart of this debate with which I strongly agree. What he is saying is that, because of the pressure of events, this selective, discretionary benefit is becoming a universal benefit. That being so, why do we not agree to make it a universal benefit, end the pretence and stop people slipping through the safety net?

Mr. McLeish: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) agrees with the central theme. A central problem for the Government has now been raised by the Opposition parties. The benefit is now available although it was applied brutally at the start. Young people were coming to me who simply could not get hardship allowance on any criteria because the Government were pushing their free market ideology and hoping that the benefit would not have to be paid. That has changed dramatically and I leave it to the Minister to think through the ultimate consequences.
The other important point about the financial support of young people is that it is simply a mess. The Government tinker with child benefit and extend it; they have a bridging allowance which moves like a ship at sea; there is severe hardship allowance and then there is youth training allowance. Does the Minister think that the incoherent application of public money in such a way is the best and most productive method of helping young people and society? I suggest that it is not.
To finish my catalogue of concern about young people in Scotland, why do the Government provide no minimum wage protection for young people in the workplace? They decided to get the wages councils off the backs of young people and let the market flourish—in their eyes—knowing full well that for young people it meant simply a cut in wages and further exploitation in the workplace.
Why do we have the poorest employment conditions for young people in Europe where rights are undermined and access to tribunals is simply non-existent? It is obvious that there are major problems for young people in Britain. Their greatest worry is the central problem of lack of economic independence and from that flow all the consequences in terms of poverty, homelessness and, in some inner cities, crime-related difficulties.

Mr. Burt: As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I am following his argument closely. I cannot see, however, that if he tries to return to a system of universal access to benefit, he is helping with the problem of dependency. If the opportunity exists and is provided universally, the determination to be on training schemes and the like may not be there. I do not see how making the benefit universally available would get over the problem of dependency. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be some form of selection, to what extent is he offering something different from what the Government are offering?

Mr. McLeish: The Minister may have been following the arguments, but that is not the issue at stake. The Government sought to strike up a partnership with young people after the abolition of universal entitlement in 1988. They have not honoured their commitment to young people. On 14 March, 5,500 young Scots had been guaranteed training, but the Government have reneged on that guarantee. That issue has to be taken seriously. It is not


about universality or the dependency culture; it is about the Government who have simply sold young people short and reneged on their commitments.
We are concerned about reneging on commitments because we need training and access to employment opportunities in every facet of Scottish society. The Government cannot have it both ways and most young Scots are being denied, or having to go through obstacle courses to get, certain forms of minimum income. At the same time, they are being denied opportunities for training that they were promised in 1988 and beyond.
The Government have smashed any partnership and destroyed young people's confidence in their ability to deliver. The debate is about moving the country on so that we do not patronise young people, but see them as a positive resource; it is all about encouraging opportunity and getting away from the sole issue of trying to make it as difficult as possible for young people to be financially independent. A YTS place paying £29.50 does not provide independence, but it produces self-worth by putting young people in a workplace environment; they are meeting other workers and are seen to be building and shaping their own future.
The Government must appreciate that it should be the right of every youngster between 16 and 18 to be given a chance. They should not be bogged down with keeping young people without financial support, and as part of that, reneging on their guarantee. That is unforgivable and the Government stand condemned. If they want to practise as well as preach independence, choice and freedom for young people, it must be about positive opportunities rather than keeping them hooked on dependency culture.
We need a complete rethink on youth policy in Britain. A number of facets of that crisis have been identified tonight—some of them have been raised by hon. Members —but we need an inquiry into the condition of young Scots and a fundamental review of youth training.
We hear nonsense from the Minister about there being more places available than young people taking them up. In my constituency, there are a large number of YT places, but no one in his right mind would want to go anywhere near them. That experience is mirrored throughout the country. Volume has to be linked to quality and when the Minister makes statements about large numbers of vacancies, he should look at the quality of vacancies and ask himself the following question: if he were that age, would he be happy to go into an environment where health and safety protection is non-existent and exploitation is high on the agenda? That is the nature of some of the YT places.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that it is totally out of proportion to suggest that health and safety protection are non-existent in any training place in any factory, given the interest that the health and safety inspectorate takes in every workplace in the country? Has not he gone over the top?

Mr. McLeish: If the hon. Gentleman had listened properly, his comment about going over the top would not apply. I made the point in response to the Minister's claim that there was a massive number of vacancies. I could take the hon. Gentleman to so-called vacancies in Scotland; young people are right not to go near them. Careers

services are often coerced into putting such places into the statistics to satisfy the Government, but, given a free rein, they would not do so. There are places where young people are being exploited and lack of health and safety provision is one aspect of that. I did not say that it was the same in every workplace, but a large number of vacancies are in that category.
I made the point that youth training needs a fundamental review. We have to change our attitude to young people. It must become more positive and less prejudiced and we should think in terms of opportunity rather than dependency. We also need to move to the concept of making young people as fully productive as possible. It is all about full employment in a modern context and allowing the self-worth of all youngsters to be generated in the way that they want—not in the way that Governments or employers determine—and to allow them to work in an environment of opportunity to give them the best possible start. We want positive young people with potential to be able to develop that to the fullest.
We believe that the Government's current policies on benefit and training simply do not satisfy the wishes of young people and, of course, we want the Government to tidy up their act on statistics to give us more facts and less smokescreen.

Mr. George Kynoch: I come to the debate on three different footings: first, as a former employer in Scotland; secondly, as a former director of a local enterprise company in Scotland—Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey local enterprise company; and, thirdly, as a parent of a daughter aged 20 and a son aged 17. One of my children has passed through the 16 to 17-year-old stage and the other has just left school and wants to go on to further education, so I am sympathetic to the problems that 16 and 17-year-olds have to face.
I am also here as an hon. Member representing constituents, seeing just what is happening in my constituency and my part of Scotland. The unemployment rate in the Grampian area, for example, at about 5.4 per cent. at present, is the best in Scotland.
This debate is not about costs but about the completely different attitude to employment and life in general of Conservative Members on the one hand and Opposition Members on the other. The Opposition parties have different complexions. At the Monklands, East by-election the Labour party fought hammer and tongs with the Scottish National party. I give my condolences to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for not quite making the winning post. However, I must also extend my condolences to the Labour party for its significantly reduced majority.

Mr. Wilson: Do the hon. Gentleman's condolences to the nationalists extend to regret that the 799 Tory votes did not go to the Scottish National party, in which case the Labour majority would have been lower?

Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I was not responsible for the way in which Conservative voters voted in Monklands, East. However, general elections can often be a completely different matter from by-elections. I am drifting slightly from the point, but I am


sure that the by-election concerned the employment prospects of young people and the way in which they are treated in Monklands, East.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that many in Monklands, East simply were not Tory voters—probably gey few. Is not the Scottish National party now seen as the tartan socialists, the real socialists in Scotland, and was that not a factor in the election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is sufficient on the Monklands by-election. Let us return to the motion.

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has a valid point. The Scottish National party is clearly the Scottish socialist party. The philosophy that it is putting forward today is one of total dependency. Young people who are leaving school are being offered the chance to go on to social security immediately. They have no incentive to make their own way.
I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) when he talks about the transition period for 16 and 17-year-olds between full-time education and going out into life as adults, having to pay their way and live in the outside world unprotected. It is important that there should be a gradual transition. They should not be given an easy route forward. They should not be given a benefit and do nothing in order to claim it. We need to provide the right environment in order to encourage Scots to better themselves and lead the industries of the world, as they have done in the past.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kynoch: I should like to carry on for a minute.
Not every 16 and 17-year-old needs to go down the benefit route. Many go on to higher education. The Government have already achieved their goal to have 30 per cent. of young people in higher education by the end of the century. In the 1970s, under a Labour Government, the proportion of young people in higher education was a mere 17 per cent. We must be doing something right in encouraging people to do what is better for them.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is no longer in her place, but she talked about when she was at university with a full grant. She said how things had changed and how students were no longer able to exist on their meagre takings through the grant or the loan system. I was at university at approximately the same time and I can remember only too clearly that when they were at university all students picked up part-time work. The hon. Lady implied that that was no longer possible, but my daughter, who is now at Heriot-Watt university, and her colleagues all manage to find part-time jobs. They do so because they want to and because they want extra pocket money. They want to go out and do it themselves; they do not want it handed to them on a plate as Opposition Members seem to wish.

Mr. Salmond: I am sure that Opposition Members will think, "Jolly good for George's daughter." The hon. Gentleman refers to young people in Scotland as "them". Will he consider the logic of his argument about the dependency culture? Why should his argument stop at withdrawing benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds? Would not the logic of his argument be to pick on the adults as

well as the young people? What defence does he put for the safety net of universal benefit provision for adults? Is not the logic of his argument to withdraw it from everyone?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is trying to say that we should be encouraging people to get off benefits, with which I heartily agree. It is right that we should try to have an economic environment in which we can get conditions right so that we can get employment up and unemployment down so that benefits are not required. However, we must still have that safety net for those undergoing severe hardship. That is exactly what the Government have done. It is hypocritical for the Opposition parties to talk about the dependency culture as they have when they want a dependency culture.

Mr. McLeish: This is an important point. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of what proportion of Scots between 16 and 18 do not want to work? What is soul-destroying about a debate such as this is the presumption that young people do not want to be trained; do not want to work; do not want to get up in the morning. My experience is the opposite. I believe that the overwhelming majority of young people have enterprise and initiative. The predicated argument is always that in some way we must do down young people by putting them through a rigorous, punitive, coercive benefits regime because otherwise they may become dependent on benefits and may not want to go into the outside world.

Mr. Kynoch: I never said that. The hon. Gentleman talked about the difficult transition from the dependent, protected society of school life into the outside world. If young people are suddenly cast into the outside world without the gradual transition of guidance and encouragement to better themselves through training or further education, the tendency for some is, unfortunately, to fall into the trap of dependency on the state. That would not be serving our young people to the best advantage. It would not be fair on young people and it would not fulfil the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has tried to put forward tonight.
I followed part of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the big problem with the Opposition parties is that one has clearly made a commitment and has said that in the unlikely event that it was in power in any shape or form it would have universal benefits—the nationalist party. I must be significantly dimmer than my hon. Friend the Minister because I am not clear whether the Labour party is advocating universal benefits. If it is, the hon. Member for Fife, Central would have his fingers smacked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) because there is the edict that the Labour party cannot pledge anything at present. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is doing a wonderful presentation job with no substance. Like the hon. Member for Fife, Central, he, too, would gloss over an issue such as this and we would hear nothing of substance.
We are talking about more than just benefits. We are not talking about costs. We should not be looking at costs; we should be trying to provide an environment in which British industry becomes more competitive so that it can flourish and gain trade in opposition to other nations. Page 30 of the Government's recent competitiveness White Paper, "Helping Business to Win", states:
Hard working people with high skills and the knowledge and understanding to use them to the full are the lifeblood of a


modern, internationally competitive economy.
I could not agree more. I come from the highly competitive textile industry in Scotland, which has passed through incredibly difficult times because of competition from low-wage countries in the far east, where products can be produced significantly cheaper. The Scottish industry had to produce something different. As time passes, British manufacturing industry must ensure that it produces quality products manufactured by skilled operatives, using the latest technology. It is imperative to provide the facilities that will allow youngsters to be trained in the proper skills and technology that industry requires.
I repeat that it is a question not only of costs but of producing a premium product that can command a premium price. Scotland in particular has the skills. Locate in Scotland has been incredibly successful in attracting investment because of the skills available there. If those skills are to be nurtured to make employment potential even greater, we must create a training environment such as never before.
Since the establishment of Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies, training opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds have increased significantly with local interpretation.

Mrs. Ewing: Evidence taken by the Employment Select Committee on 21 October 1992 showed that 7,946 young people in the youth training guarantee group in Scotland were without a training place. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is progress?

Mr. Kynoch: Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait to hear my further remarks about training. I would refer to her constituency in particular, but, to be fair, her LEC bridges both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I shall refer to the benefits of the skill seekers operation pioneered by Grampian Enterprise.
Some of the problems of the YTS scheme have been addressed by the skill seekers scheme. The Government have tried to introduce the right environment. They should not interfere and coerce industry to improve training, but cajole it into providing opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds.
Local enterprise companies face the difficulty that much of business is reluctant to train. That is sad—but in recessionary times, short-sighted companies cut back and do not provide training places. It is important to place greater emphasis on youth training and I welcome Government expenditure in that direction. Expenditure on training throughout the United Kingdom in 1993–94 totalled £844 million and it will remain at approximately the same level in 1994–95—despite the fact that the number of 16 and 17-year-olds is falling and a higher proportion are remaining in further education.
In Scotland, the youth training and skill seekers budget totalled £86.5 million in 1993–94 and is forecast to increase to £93.5 million in 1994–95. We are seeing greater Government commitment to better training.
Grampian Enterprise pioneered skill seekers and training credits. In 1990, the Department of Employment offered the then Training Agency area offices the opportunity, in the run-up to the establishment of LECs, to pilot a system of training credits. Grampian Enterprise seized that opportunity, realising that there could be major

benefits compared to the youth training to which the hon. Member for Moray referred. Youth training relied heavily on non-employed placement and disestablished the normal relationship between the employer and young employee. In Grampian, that resulted in a drop-out rate higher than 40 per cent.
Most young people leaving YT did so to enter a real job rather than the indoctrinated job that YT offered, so that they would have something of a future. They entered that job without substantial training, which was most unfortunate. With skill seekers, Grampian's primary objective was to re-establish the principle of real jobs with real training. Since 1991, the turnover of 16 and 17-year-olds in training has significantly improved.
When Grampian ended the YT scheme, there were 1,900 people in training. Only 32 per cent. of them had employed status, and those working towards a vocational qualification accounted for 50 per cent. The number of leavers achieving a vocational qualification was pitifully low, at 8 per cent.
Six hundred employers contracted to operate youth training schemes. The company that I operated took YTS youngsters and employed every one. We used it as a pilot skill seekers scheme. Having put those young people through training, we felt that we could then offer them jobs. Almost all of them accepted positions with the company.
After three years of operating skill seekers in Grampian, almost 4,000 young people are in training compared with 1,900 on 1 April 1991—of which 95 per cent. are employed. Ninety-five per cent. are working towards a vocational qualification and 54 per cent. of leavers achieve a qualification. The number of employers contracted to the scheme is 2,200, compared with 600 before. There is much greater co-operation with local industry. [Interruption.] I hear sedentary suggestions that my comments may be having a negative effect on some people. I am sure that, if they are having any effect, they are probably making youngsters—wherever they may be listening—rush off to Grampian Enterprise to take advantage of its skill seekers scheme.
I mentioned the number of trainees on that scheme who were aiming for recognised vocational qualifications. Many are seeking such qualifications at level 3—craft level —or above. The figures for YT are not currently available, but we know that more than twice as many trainees are now aiming for higher-level qualifications.
I believe that Government intervention—if we are to call it that—in the youth labour market is helping employers to train young employees and direct them towards recognised vocational qualifications, thus enhancing the skills pool. The Government have provided an opportunity for all youngsters to go out and better themselves, preparing themselves more effectively for the outside world with better skills and better equipment to provide British industry with higher-quality, improved products and more efficiency—thus bringing about a better economy, a better Britain and a better Scotland.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for opening a debate on a subject in which I have been very interested for a long time. I am sorry that her speech had to include the ritualistic attack on the Labour party, but I


suppose that she can hardly refrain from that. Among other things, there was also the usual build-up in Scotland, using radio, television and other parts of the media to attack Labour. I find that sad: I should have thought that the obvious culprit responsible for the plight of 16 and 17-year-olds was the Tory party. It is rather pathetic that the hon. Lady aimed so much of her fire in the wrong direction.
However, I have no interest in bandying words with the nationalists tonight, because I know that the guilty people are the Government. I also know that, if ever there was an issue that demonstrated the silliness of nationalism in the United Kingdom, it is this one. The tragedy is that many of the young people who are sleeping rough in England's towns and cities—indeed, within a few hundred yards of where we are now—are Scots, people from our constituencies. Those young people have enough going against them; making them foreigners in the cities whither they have been cast out is surely an additional folly.

Mr. Salmond: That is a remarkable statement, coming from someone who was not going to make any attacks. I should have thought that it was an argument for a better economy in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman was correct about one thing, however: he has been interested in this issue for a number of years. In his Adjournment debate in 1988, he said:
The only urgent answer is to restore income support to youngsters who do not have jobs or YTS places".—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 144.]
When did he stop believing that that was the only urgent answer?

Mr. Wilson: I was not attacking the hon. Gentleman's party; I was attacking the concept of turning young Scottish people into foreigners in this city. That is not an attack on a political party. If the hon. Gentleman's party stands for that, it is his party's problem, but it does no favours to the young people whom we are discussing.

Mrs. Ewing: Answer the question. Will you pay the benefits?

Mr. Wilson: With respect to the hon. Lady, the hon. Gentleman asked two questions. I shall answer the second in my own way and my own time.
I did not use my Adjournment debate to attack any minority party; indeed, I was pleased to allow Mr. Jim Sillars, then Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Govan, a few minutes in which to speak. To his credit, he did not use that time to attack the Labour party; he attacked the Tories. Perhaps, as someone looking for votes in west central Scotland, he had a better idea of where the blame lay than the current members of the Scottish National party.
I do not believe that the past should be swept away. I believe that we owe the young people who have suffered under the current legislation more than that. We cannot simply move on, saying that things have changed and citing the reforms to which the Minister referred. In 1988, largely as a result of the efforts of a then junior social security Minister—the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—what I described then as an evil piece of legislation was introduced. That legislation withdrew the right to benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds. The Government did that without thinking of the human consequences and the damage that would be done to young people.
I believe that that legislation should be permanently hung around the Prime Minister's neck. He was the

Minister who was primarily responsible for it, and for the vast reservoir of human damage—indeed, the ending of life—that resulted from it. The Prime Minister did that on his way up the greasy pole; he should never be allowed to forget that he was responsible for that damage.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman seems to be neglecting all the safety net provisions that my hon. Friend the Minister outlined earlier. He is speaking as though the safety net was done away with, but it was not.

Mr. Wilson: I was about to deal with the safety net.
In my Adjournment debate in 1988, the Minister who replied was the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who has moved on to kicking the crutches away from the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. He went through the litany of justifications for the measure. He said:
I can think of nothing more debilitating for the mass of youngsters leaving education and entering the adult world than to have automatically to depend on state benefits.
I can think of something more debilitating: to leave young people without a job, without a training place and without a penny of legal income. That is what the Government did. He went on to say:
the offer of a YTS place is guaranteed.
That was a falsehood then and, to a lesser extent, it is a falsehood now.
The Minister continued:
In the 12 weeks since the new provisions took effect, 1,688 applications under the severe hardship provision have been received. In 1,139 cases, a direction resulted and in 549 a direction was refused."—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 147–48.]
The Minister said tonight that 11,000 severe hardship applications are made each month, 90 per cent. of which are accepted. But in the crucial early months and years of the legislation, about 500 applications a month were lodged. Five hundred people got through the hoops to make the applications, a third of which were disallowed. That prevailed for some two or three years, a little while before the present Minister took up his job, and no doubt he has made some useful changes.
That is where my description of the legislation as evil is justified. In those years, tens of thousands of young people were recklessly cast aside without a job, without a training place, without a pretence that the guarantee would be fulfilled and without the severe hardship allowance, to which at least many of them are now entitled. The measure was one of the cruellest and most despicable acts of the Government under Baroness Thatcher, but we should never forget the role of the present Prime Minister.
What brought about the change? Things were so bad, the human debris that was created was so extreme, that the Department of Social Security felt obliged to commission a survey from MORI, which drew some remarkable conclusions and which bear out what I have said. MORI conducted a survey of 500 youngsters, a self-selecting group because they had found their way into social security offices in the first place. The survey showed that 500 destitute youngsters had claimed for discretionary severe hardship payment. Almost half of them had slept rough. One in five had been sexually abused before leaving home. One in three of the boys had stolen or begged to obtain money. One in six was literally penniless when arriving at a DSS office, usually directed there by charities. That is what Conservative Members voted for in 1988. That is the scheme that the Prime Minister conceived and it had to be sorted out because of the wreckage that it had created.

Mr. Kynoch: Do I therefore take it that the hon. Gentleman, if not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), is advocating the universal restoration of benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds?

Mr. Wilson: I shall answer that question by referring to the original purpose of the measure. It was never about saving money because the money involved was not large, and it is not large now. It is a diversion to talk about the cost of restoring this benefit.
There are three potential explanations showing why this was done in the first place: first, it would save money, which is a relatively unimportant argument; secondly, there were competing philosophies of what should happen to 16 and 17-year-olds, and whether they should be in the benefits system; and, thirdly—this was the major argument—with a stroke of the pen, the Government got all the 16 and 17-year-olds off the unemployment statistics. That is what they were doing in 1988 with the social security legislation. In one blow, they got 100,000 people off the unemployment statistics by the cruellest of logic.
As we all know, they are not unemployment statistics. They contain only those who are unemployed and eligible to claim benefit. If, by definition, we say that 16 and 17-year-olds are not eligible to claim benefit, no 16 or 17-year-olds show in the unemployment statistics. That is what the legislation was primarily about in 1988. To this day, I regard that as the biggest insult to 16 and 17-year-olds—those who still have no job, no benefit and no training place, and who are not even considered to have the human worth in this society to be counted in the unemployment statistics. Yet that is what was done, and it is one of the ways in which the unemployment statistics have been reduced. There is an army of 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds out there who have none of those things and who do not even count as an unemployment statistic.
I say this to any journalist who may hear this debate and who covers the subject of unemployment statistics: never again talk about the number of unemployed; talk about the number out of work and claiming benefit. As soon as one accepts the Tory terminology, one wipes the 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds from the face of the earth. That is what the social security legislation was about.
Labour will not fiddle the unemployment statistics. We will not leave anyone destitute in the streets. We will fulfil a guarantee—replacing the bogus guarantee that was given by the Government either to give proper training to young people or to make one of the other provisions available to them. I shall ask the Minister a direct question.

Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: No; I must watch the time.
Things have moved on a great deal. Instead of 500 applications a month for severe hardship, a third of which were refused, the Minister proudly—and with some reason for that pride—told us that there are now 11,000 applications a month, of which 90 per cent. are accepted. As the Minister was not here, I shall repeat that the gap between the two statistics is two thirds of 500 and 90 per cent. of 11,000. That is the difference between the evil of what was done between 1980 and 1991 and the improved system which now functions. To that extent, the Minister is due congratulations. If he had anything to do with the earlier regime, he is due none. There has therefore been some change in that direction.
I shall ask the Minister a direct question: if roughly 10,000 youngsters a week are, to all intents and purposes, getting benefits through the system, do they count in the unemployment statistics? Are they regarded as unemployed people who are eligible to claim benefit? Is severe hardship allowance a benefit for that purpose? I am sure that the answers would be interesting. If not, it is simply another sleight of hand to keep them off the unemployment statistics.
I have some sympathy with the argument that it is not the best thing for young people to go straight on to benefit. I should prefer it if they went into training places or jobs. I invite Tory Members to come to my constituency and see the training centre at Moorpark house at Kilbirnie which is run by Cunninghame district council, where first-class training is given. It is not true to say—and no hon. Member has said it tonight—that all training is third rate or is exempt from health and safety or anything else. Some training is third rate, but training is good where proper resources are put in. That is the best thing for 16 and 17-year-olds—that or real jobs. But what must be in place is a real safety net for every 16 and 17-year-old who has neither.

Mr. Kynoch: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he realise that skill seekers, which was pioneered in Grampian and to which I referred, will be available throughout the local enterprise company structure in 1995?

Mr. Wilson: I have discussed the question of skill seekers with Ayrshire Enterprise. The scheme has some worth, as many of the schemes and many of the people who are trying to implement them have worth. No one is denigrating training. We are saying that we should have more and better training and stop the pretence that everyone already has access to training.
I shall finish by referring to the statistics for my constituency. I obtained today the Scottish Office careers service management returns for my constituency. At the Ardrossan office, 59 youngsters are in the guarantee and are registered for youth training. Twenty of them are due an offer of a place which starts immediately and do not have one. At the Irvine office, which covers the Garnock valley, 80 youngsters are in the guarantee and registered for youth training. Thirteen are due a place immediately and do not have it. In Ayrshire as a whole, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), 335 youngsters are in the guarantee and eligible for a place and 111 do not have a place. That accords closely with the figures for Scotland which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) quoted.
However, the argument is not about numbers. If one innocent youngster since 1988 under the legislation has been offered the guarantee of a youth training place and then denied it, was not given the financial support and was put in the position described in the MORI survey, it was an offence against the House and against humane government.
Yes, there have been improvements, but the scheme is based on a flawed concept. If there is a guarantee, everyone should have a place. If there is not a guarantee, let us hear it honestly tonight and let us create the missing thousands of places. The fact that so many youngsters have suffered


under the scheme should be acknowledged historically. A Labour Government will fulfil that guarantee and no one will be left destitute.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not care if the nationalists attack the Labour party until they are blue in the face. It does not seem to do them a great deal of good. People in Scotland and the rest of Britain—it is a British issue—understand that Labour will not leave young people in that position. There will be a guarantee. No one will be left destitute. There will be good training, real jobs and a genuine safety net. That is what Labour offers and I am proud to offer it. The historical judgment of what was done in 1988 by this Government and this Prime Minister to that generation of young people should never be forgotten.

Mr. Phil Gallie: It disappoints me to find so few Members in the Chamber tonight. Representatives of the Scottish National party are here, although only in the latter stages of the debate have they managed to bring in all the SNP Members. There are no Plaid Cymru Members present. There are no Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist or Social Democratic and Labour party Members. Only three socialist Members have been present during the debate at any one time. There are no Liberals in the Chamber. Perhaps that reflects the words of the motion and suggests that it was defeated even before it got off the ground and even before the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) rose to her feet to advance the argument.
In recognising that people felt that it was not worth while coming to the Chamber for the debate and despite the passionate words, to which I well relate in some respects, of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I suggest that if we went back to the past we would do no favours to the 16 and 17-year-olds. As the hon. Member for Moray said, there is something wrong about a system which allows idle hands. It creates a dead-end society. There is something fundamentally wrong with allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to lie in their beds and expect the state to pass cash to them.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North suggested that the 1988 legislation took 100,000 young people off the unemployment lists. I dispute the figures that he used earlier. My contacts in the enterprise companies, whether in the north or south of Scotland assure me that they can guarantee places for every youngster who comes to them. No youngsters are turned away.
Given the words of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, if a youngster were turned away with no place, the Government guarantee and the contract would be broken at that point and the youngster should be entitled to benefits. If they want to work, but cannot, that is a different matter, but that is not the case. Youth training, in whatever guise, instils discipline and interest in youngsters. I fully appreciate that it is not all top class, but it is worth while because of the great range of opportunities offered to young people throughout the country by people who have put much effort into training initiatives.
Yesterday, a question was asked in the House about the opportunities for engineering apprenticeships in Scotland —they are still alive and kicking. One company in my constituency Aviall, which maintains aeroplane jet

engines, is recruiting more and more engineering apprentices every year. They are highly skilled and the apprenticeships highly valued.
When I listen to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and other Opposition Members, I wonder how many of them had spent time in a workshop, a factory or on the industrial scene. Many of them seem to come straight from education to this place and they miss out. I must inform the hon. Member for Fife, Central—despite the fact that he is not here at present—that his comments on safety are not recognisable, when one takes into consideration the role of health and safety inspectorates in the modern industrial world. Young people, in particular, are guarded within the United Kingdom workplace. Ill betide any employer who contravenes the United Kingdom's health and safety regulations.
To return to Aviall and the apprenticeships that it is offering, 80 per cent. of its apprentices achieve higher national standard. That is not something to hang our heads in shame about when we discuss youth training. It was not achieved in the past and it offers much for the future. It says a lot, not merely about the training skills and education facilities available, but about the quality of our young people.
As I recognise that there is only limited time, I shall refer briefly to youth training. Back in the early days, when youth training schemes first started, I took on such a scheme. Not all the youngsters involved gained employment with the company that I represented, but they all certainly gained work experience and moved on to other workplaces. About 75 per cent. of them achieved jobs, and that was on what was considered to be an underrated youth training scheme.
Today, we have moved much further forward. Huge numbers of youngsters go into higher education in Scotland and that, in itself, is a tribute to the facilities that the Government have put on offer.
Earlier we heard about student grants and students' difficulties. If we analyse what happens in other European countries, we recognise that our young people are not all that badly done by.
I shall mention one point regarding the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central. He said that there was a suggestion that Conservative Members believed that young people did not want to work. Quite honesty, that is totally untrue. Conservatives believe that people should use their resources to the maximum, and that there is no more important resource in this country than our young people. Conservatives desire to put them to work.
It is all right for Opposition Members to come out with woolly words, saying that we need to give youngsters real jobs. The Government have created employment opportunities in this country and, while employment is falling in every country across Europe, it is rising in this country. That is important, and it offers hope to our young people.
The Scottish National party motion is a total waste of time, and the absence of hon. Members from the Chamber is recognition that it makes a valueless contribution to the debate. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the motion.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall try to answer the final comment of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). He was self-contradicting, as that was not how he started his speech.
The Scottish National party took this subject matter for our supply day debate this evening for three main reasons. The first was that it is a hugely important issue in its own right, and the fact that the Chamber is not stuffed to the gunnels is more of a comment on hon. Members than it is on either the issue or the motion. If we were to apply "Gallie's law" to the various subjects that are talked about in the Chamber, we would rapidly draw the conclusion that most hon. Members do not believe that any Scottish subject is worth while on any occasion. The Government Benches are seldom full when we debate a Scottish issue.
The second reason why we chose the subject—I admit it openly—was that we wanted to tease out some of the neanderthal attitudes towards young people that have been displayed in the speeches of the hon. Member for Ayr and other Government Members. Their idea is that if people were entitled to benefit, they would somehow be tempted away from training places or the hope of career, that they would want to lie in their beds all day if they got benefit and that they would not have an incentive to get out in the big wide world. [Interruption.] I Those phrases have come up during the debate.
The hon. Member for Ayr said that he resented the impression given by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that the idea among Conservative Members was that young people did not want to work. What other impressions can there be if the underlying argument of those who oppose the motion is that if young people are entitled to benefit, they will not go on a training scheme and will not go out to start a career?

Mr. Gallie: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his assumption is totally wrong. Conservatives have been providing training opportunities that will give value to youngsters in the years ahead. We want to ensure that youngsters do not grow up with the dependency tendency that is so often encouraged by socialists and by the hon. Gentleman. The opportunities given to youngsters these days demonstrate that we value youngsters and that we are attempting to achieve the best from them.

Mr. Salmond: Even the hon. Gentleman's interventions are self-contradicting. That is exactly the point. The argument that underlies his attitude is that somehow if people were entitled to the princely sum of £27 a week, of automatic benefit, they would veer away from a training course or a future career. That is a remarkable comment on the Conservative party's attitude towards young Scots and to young people elsewhere.
The third reason why we chose this subject for the debate—again, I openly admit it—was to try to tempt some firm commitment from the Labour party, but I am afraid that the debate has failed on that. There should be a firm commitment on that issue. I wish that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had been able to give tonight the same commitment that he managed to give as a Back-Bench Member in 1988. It is entirely legitimate for one party to ask another what commitment underpins its attitude, if anything, and what underpins its policy, if anything.
When I was preparing for this debate in the Library, my

musings were interrupted at various times by the stamping of feet from above. I was informed by an aggrieved librarian that that was the typical antics of the 1922 Committee at its end-of-term bash. I thought that the only thing that could possibly provoke such unanimity from the 1922 Committee was the resignation of the Prime Minister, but, no, apparently the Prime Minister did not resign this evening.
Two things struck me about that enthusiastic foot stamping. First that, obviously, Rosyth had not been raised as an issue at that meeting—or perhaps Scottish Conservatives were elsewhere. Secondly, no one in that end-of-term rally could have reminded the Prime Minister that he was the Minister who withdrew benefits from youngsters in 1988. It is this Prime Minister who made one of the most disgraceful interventions during the European election campaign, when he argued that there should be a criminal offence of "aggressive begging". My party and the other Opposition parties believe that if any criminal offence was committed, it was committed by those Tory pickpockets who removed benefit from young people. That is the offence, not the consequences of it that we see, with so many youngsters on the streets in Scotland and elsewhere.
The heart of the debate falls into two parts. First, the Minister failed to give a satisfactory answer to my repeated intervention asking for his explanation of the Shelter estimate that, last year, up to 5,000 youngsters in Scotland slept rough at some time. That is related to a number of factors—for example, housing provision. One quarter of homeless applications come from young single people aged between 16 and 24. More than 10,000 young people applied as homeless to district and island councils in Scotland in the previous financial year. Of those, only 3,000 were deemed to be in priority need and, of them, just 1,900 secured permanent accommodation. There is simply not enough emergency accommodation in Scotland, because only one in five of young people who apply for it is admitted. It has also been revealed that 45 per cent. of those staying in such accommodation had slept rough at some time. That is the basis for the Shelter estimate that up to 5,000 youngsters in Scotland slept rough at some time last year was reached.
The Minister said that there was a variety of reasons for that appalling statistic. I suggest that the reason that up to 5,000 young people slept rough in Scotland last year is that those young people had no houses, no jobs, no available training and, in many cases, no hope whatsoever. As the Minister and his Scottish colleagues bear the burden of the responsibility for the inter-reaction of housing provision and benefit, would it not be reasonable to acknowledge that, if 5,000 youngsters are sleeping rough in Scotland, the system for which the Minister claims so much credit is not working in practice on the streets of Scotland?
The second issue at the heart of the debate is whether a discretionary or universal scheme provides sufficient protection. There has been a massive growth in the number of people applying for, and getting, severe hardship payments in the 16 to 17-year-old category. However, that payment was never envisaged as a mainstream provision for such significant numbers. It has been used to mop up the effects of recession and the failure to meet the guarantee of a YT place for all who want one.
During the debate, I was struck by the way in which the hon. Member for Fife, Central and other Opposition


Members have referred to the thousands of young people who are in the qualification category for a guaranteed training place but cannot get one.

Mr. Gallie: That is not true.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but those details have been offered for constituencies and in global figures. Those details have even been given by local enterprise companies in evidence to a House of Commons Committee. If the hon. Member has not bothered to read the detail on offer, there is little that we can do to educate him. Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that thousands of youngsters cannot get the training place which the Government originally guaranteed?

Mr. Gallie: I dispute that. The Scottish Select Committee and I have been in touch with enterprise companies throughout the country and they advise us that a place is available for any youngster who wants to go on a youth training scheme. If all the places were taken up, there may not be enough, but places are certainly available on Ayrshire Enterprise for youngsters now applying.

Mr. Salmond: Every time the hon. Gentleman intervenes or makes a speech, he contradicts himself in the process. He should accept that a mountain of evidence shows that thousands of youngsters in Scotland cannot get training places. He says that if every youngster available for a training place wanted to take it up, there would be a shortage of places. He thereby admits that the devil's bargain struck by the Government when they withdrew benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds, on the basis that a training place would be available for everyone, has not been kept.

Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with a fax that I received today front Mr. Bruce Armitage, director of training at Grampian Enterprise, about the enterprise company in the hon. Gentleman's area of Banff and Buchan, which has the highest number of youths undergoing skill seekers training of any district council. It says;
In holding a firm line on employment with training we have not experienced any Youth Guarantee difficulties. At the end of March 1994, we had only 12 young people awaiting an offer under the Youth Guarantee.
Will the hon. Gentleman respond to that?

Mr. Salmond: I was making a general point. I am extremely pleased that youngsters in my constituency are finding things better than others elsewhere in Scotland. Unemployment in my constituency is lower than the Scottish average—it is rising fast now because of a number of factors in fishing and other industries—but it cannot be considered typical of the whole of Scotland, which is what we are meant to be debating.
In evidence given to the House of Commons by local enterprise companies, it was estimated that up to 9,000 youngsters in Scotland at that time—admittedly, it was 1992—had not gained access to the training place which they were guaranteed.

Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: I have already given way generously to the hon. Gentleman. I shall make the point once again that the bulk and burden of evidence are crystal clear.
Thousands of youngsters in Scotland have found the offer of a training place meaningless because a place has not been offered.
Before those interventions, I was saying that the nub of the debate was whether a universal or a discretionary benefit was appropriate under those circumstances and I pointed to the massive growth in the number of people applying for severe hardship payments. Benefits Agency figures show that, in 1989, 10,609 successful applications were made for severe hardship payments in the UK and that, by 1992, that figure had risen to 77,906. There are two ways of looking at those statistics. First, one can argue that the severe hardship payment, which was originally a selective means of assistance and a discretionary benefit, has effectively become a safety net provision. For that reason, while the problem has not gone away, it has been ameliorated compared with a few years ago.
I hope that I am not doing the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North an injustice, but that was his basic argument. He was giving the Government too much credit because credit is not due. Clearly, tens of thousands of youngsters suffered when no effective safety net was in place. It can be argued that, because the severe hardship payment has become more than a temporary provision, some safety net is now in place. However, another way to look at the matter is to say that if the emergency and severe hardship payments have become a universal benefit, the argument for not having a universal benefit in the first place has been removed.
If we concede this point of principle on the issue of 16 to 17-year-olds, it will be replayed throughout the income support and social security system. If it is conceded that discretionary benefits can be fair to everyone and provide an effective safety net, we shall witness the end of the universal benefit system, not only for 16 and 17-year-olds, but for whole categories of the population.
As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), who seemed to attribute qualities of self-reliance to people if benefits were withdrawn from them, it would be as appropriate to argue that of an adult Scot as it would be to argue it of a 16 to 17-year-old Scot. If he picks on the 16 to 17-year-olds—if that is the underlying argument behind the policy prescription that the Government are following—why not pick on a range of other groups of the population?
My warning to those people who are not sympathetic to the argument in the motion would therefore be that if it is accepted that a selective discretionary benefit can provide an effective safety net for 16 to 17-year-olds, that argument will be replayed throughout the social security system, and sooner rather than later. It has been accepted, at least in some parts of the Labour Benches, that it is not a financial issue. The sums involved are minor in the global public finance sector. A philosophical question is at stake.
It is argued by Conservative Members that youngsters, if given the option of a safety net, will accept that comfortable safety net and stay in their beds, as was said earlier, instead of going out into the big, bad, wide world and finding a career or training place. That argument underlies the Conservative party position.
The Labour party's position is that it cannot give a spending commitment on anything. Why not?

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman has just recognised that it is not primarily a spending issue, why does he immediately afterwards attack the Labour party for not


giving a spending commitment? I have given, and other Labour party spokesmen have given, a clear guarantee that every youngster will be covered in one of the various ways mentioned. Any sensible party should devise the best modern way to assist all those youngsters. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is not primarily a spending commitment, I find it difficult to understand what he disagrees about.

Mr. Salmond: That is exactly the point. I accept that it is not basically a financial issue. The sums involved are incremental in public finance, but there is a question of the philosophy of the Labour party at present, which unfortunately means that no spending commitment, however minor, can be given to any group of people, because it breaks the shadow Treasury law that one must not give a spending commitment on anything.
The Labour party was thrown into confusion about that subject. It should have had the political initiative, as a result of the Prime Minister's disastrous intervention—about beggars in the street—in the European election campaign. However, within days, the Labour party's iron law on spending commitments had thrown the Opposition on to the defensive. In the immortal words of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, something must be done as long as there are no budgetary implications.
Some issues inevitably have budgetary implications, even if those are minor as regards total Government finance, and this is one of them. At base, it is not an issue of finance or Budgets or money, but a moral issue about the withdrawal of benefit from young people in 1988—a wrong that was done to tens of thousands of youngsters, for whom the consequences have been severe—and about how it can possibly be claimed that an emergency provision can fulfil the safety net role which, elsewhere in the benefit system, depends on a universal benefit application.
Why on earth should 16 to 17-year-olds, of all people, some of whom are the most vulnerable groups in the population and 5,000 of whom ended up sleeping rough in Scotland at some time last year, be singled out for the trial run of the selective benefits system down to which the Conservatives will undoubtedly drag this country?
If the Labour party surrenders that principle to the Conservative party when there is very little finance involved, how on earth will it make a stand on any other principle? It is time to treat the subject as a moral issue, not a financial one. It is time for other hon. Members to justify themselves to 16 and 17-year-olds by joining my hon. Friends and me in the Lobby tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): This has been an interesting debate. It was opened by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who began by deploring the absence of hon. Members from other parties. The effect was slightly lessened at the time by the absence of any other hon. Members from the Scottish National party. The hon. Lady has since been joined by some colleagues.
We have had a full debate with some excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). We also heard some interesting speeches from the Opposition.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The reason why I was not present earlier in the debate was that I was away defending people against another aspect of Government policy—the withdrawal of the ability of adult trainees to train. The Government's attack on adults is mirrored by their attack on youth. I am here to support the Scottish National party, which believes in defending all people who need help and are being denied it by the Government.

Mr. Hague: I am glad to have been of service to the hon. Gentleman by providing him with the opportunity to state his case and show his presence in the debate. His remarks tie in with some of the more outlandish comments made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who tried to portray the Government's policy on 16 and 17-year-olds as a sign of the Government's intention towards the rest of the population. The difference between 16 and 17-year-olds and the rest of the population is that we can guarantee that they will have education or training places. He said that there seemed to be a presumption by the Government that people do not want to work—

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: Let me make a little progress and then I shall give way. I want to answer as many points as possible in the time available.
The Government presumption is the opposite of that suggested by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. They presume that people want to work, obtain education and training. Now, the overwhelming majority in that age group are able to do so.
We should knock on the head at the outset the argument advanced at various times in the debate that the youth training system—the guarantee—is not working and large numbers of people are unable to obtain a place. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside spoke of his experience in regions of Scotland, including the Grampian region. He mentioned that in one instance only 12 people could not be found a place.
The most up-to-date overall figures for Scotland—for which I think the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) asked—are that, as of 31 May, there are 4,308 people in the guarantee group, more than 1,000 of whom have been waiting for more than eight weeks. The number of vacant training places is more than 4,000. It takes time to fit some people into the right places, but those are the overall statistics, which we should bear in mind. Where problems arise, resources are directed at them. Fife Enterprise has allocated an additional £500,000 to increase by 400 the number of youth training places available in the Fife region. I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will welcome that.
The hon. Member for Moray asked about the cumbersome claims process. Most of the decision-making on severe hardship has been devolved from the central unit in Glasgow to local offices. That makes the process quicker and the local office can respond to local circumstances. We want to be particularly careful that vulnerable young people receive appropriate support. We have nominated an officer in each Benefits Agency district office who has special responsibility for 16 and 17-year-olds.
We have improved training to make staff more aware of the specific needs of young people and how to deal with them sympathetically. We have also issued a best practice guide to staff, stressing the vulnerability and sensitivity of


the group. We have improved contacts with voluntary organisations and local groups that deal with young people so that they are aware of the support available.
The Benefits Agency's plans to introduce a one-stop service will be particularly relevant to people in that group. They will eventually be able to have all their benefits business dealt with at one time, in one place and by one person.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister quotes figures for the youth training guarantee, but the fact is that many young people are not guaranteed a place on YT, and they certainly do not have a job at the end of it. He also talks about a one-stop agency for young people, but when will it start? The three offices that young people have to go through now deter many of them; it is a very bureaucratic process, and difficult to understand. We need a date.

Mr. Hague: The guarantee is available to all who wish to take advantage of it, and most young people go on from training to get a job, or they undergo further education or training. The process is succeeding.
The Benefits Agency's plans to introduce a one-stop service were announced some months ago and are proceeding. We cannot give a date by which the whole process will be finished, but there will be established in the agency a one-stop shop, and that is the ultimate objective of the agency's work.
For the moment, the Glasgow unit remains responsible for decisions not to pay and for complex cases. It also closely monitors decisions that are taken. We are reviewing more effective procedures for claiming income support under severe hardship as part of our deliberations on the operations of the job seeker's allowance.
The hon. Member for Moray claimed that other European countries were more generous to young people. I must take this opportunity to put her right. In most EC countries, social assistance benefits are not generally payable to young people under the age of 18. In Belgium, they are usually payable from 18, except also to people who are pregnant or looking after a child. In Spain, they are payable from the age of 25, except to people looking after a handicapped person or child. In France, they become payable from the age of 25, and are also payable to those looking after at least one child. In Ireland, 18 is the relevant age, in Luxembourg, it is 30 and in the Netherlands, it is 18. Hence the hon. Lady's assertion that other European countries are more generous to young people of this age group does not quite correspond with the facts. I hope that she will study with more care some of the figures from the Community.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked about the quality of training places on YT. Stringent requirements are placed on TECs and LECs in respect of the quality of training places. The types of places are geared to the needs of the local labour market. Seventy-six per cent. of those completing training enter jobs, further education or training. Seventy-four per cent. of YT leavers completing their training in July 1993 gained a qualification or credits towards one. That is evidence that the quality of training is good, and local enterprise companies are required by contracts with Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise to offer high-quality training appropriate to the needs of the local labour market. If contracts are being breached, cases should be brought to the attention of the relevant chief executive.

Mr. Salmond: If the Minister is correct and all these training places and opportunities are available to young people, will he answer the question that his colleague could not? In Hague's promised land, why were 5,000 youngsters in Scotland, according to Shelter, sleeping rough last year?

Mr. Hague: There is no question of "if it is right that these places are available". They are available. There is no reason for anyone to sleep rough on the streets of Scotland tonight. It is, in any case, rather misleading to talk about 5,000, because it is an estimated figure for the whole year. At any one time, the number is probably nearer several hundred. There is no need for any of those people to be there. Severe hardship payments are available for those who need them and there is a guarantee of education or training for the whole of that age group.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: No, I really must get on. The hon. Gentleman made a 20-minute speech before I began my wind-up and I have answered his point to the satisfaction of a large proportion of the House.
The idea that the offer of a guaranteed place is a falsehood is not true. All 16 and 17-year-olds are guaranteed a YT place and a training allowance. If some choose not to take advantage of the opportunities available, it is their choice. The Government believe that young people should make a positive choice for training rather than becoming dependent on benefit. The overwhelming majority make that choice and want to take up education and training.
We want young people to make the most of the opportunities provided. That is consistent with the policies that run through the current review of social security—focusing benefits on those who need them, removing disincentives to work and making sure that social security is affordable.
We believe that young people should start their adult lives equipped for the future and not dependent on benefits. They should not be encouraged to be dependent on the resources of the state. It is better to train in new skills and increase their ability to earn for themselves. That view has wide support on all sides of the House and Labour Members have expressed support for it in principle this evening.
It adds up to a sensible strategy of offering education or training to all, removing any financial incentive not to take up training, creating the right attitude and leaving only a tiny percentage of the total in the age group suffering hardship and making special provision for them if they do.
I wonder what Scottish National party Members think would be gained by a change of the kind they have advocated? Have they thought through the consequences? What would happen if their proposals, such as they are, were agreed to? What would happen if we were to tell 16 and 17-year-olds that they would be better off than they are today if they left home? What would happen to the quality of our work force in future if we told 16 and 17-year-olds that the state would support them, irrespective of their willingness to be trained? What sort of nation are SNP Members trying to build?
We also have to ask how the SNP proposes to pay for it. Labour Members were asked to state their policy this evening. With all due credit to the hon. Member for Fife,


Central, who made clarification upon clarification of his party's policy, he retreated into a fog of obfuscation. There is no clear Labour party policy on the matter.
We are debating a motion which is only one sentence. The Scottish National party is clearly in favour of it. The Government are against it. We do not know whether the Labour party is for or against it, even though we had a lengthy speech from the hon. Member for Fife, Central. It is even more disturbing that Labour Members do not know whether they are for or against it; they are waiting for the Social Justice Commission to make some pronouncement and, even then, we do not know whether they will be for or against it.
At least we can give SNP Members some credit for being consistent and knowing what they want to do. It is a pity that they have so many competing spending priorities, such as the commitment to a new national household minimum income or to campaigning for a common Euro-pension of £90 for a single person and £130 for a couple. I do not know how they propose to pay for that, particularly in an independent Scotland. None of it was thought through before they tabled the motion.
It is strange that the SNP chose this subject for its Opposition half-day debate. Why did it not choose to debate the Scottish economy? Presumably, because it is improving. Why did it not choose to discuss unemployment in Scotland? Presumably, because it is falling. Why did it not choose to debate inward investment in Scotland? Presumably, because it is so substantial.
Instead, the SNP chose to debate a policy based on misconceptions. It would be damaging in its effect, it is out of step with the policies of other countries, its consequences have been ill-thought-through and it is put forward without the slightest indication of how it is to be financed. It thoroughly deserves to be rejected.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 121.

Division No. 291]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Alex Salmond and



Mr. Andrew Welsh.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coe, Sebastian


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowis, John
Elletson, Harold


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas





Gallie, Phil
Richards, Rod


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Gillan, Cheryl
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hague, William
Sims, Roger


Harris, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Hawksley, Warren
Spencer, Sir Derek


Heald, Oliver
Spink, Dr Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sproat, Iain


Hendry, Charles
Steen, Anthony


Hicks, Robert
Stephen, Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stewart, Allan


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Streeter, Gary


Jenkin, Bernard
Sweeney, Walter


Jessel, Toby
Sykes, John


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Thomason, Roy


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knapman, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Viggers, Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Walden, George


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Legg, Barry
Waterson, Nigel


Lidington, David
Watts, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wells, Bowen


Malone, Gerald
Whittingdale, John


Merchant, Piers
Widdecombe, Ann


Mills, Iain
Willetts, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wilshire, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wood, Timothy


Nicholls, Patrick



Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Pickles, Eric
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises that vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds and those facing severe hardship continue to have access to benefits; believes that it is in the long term interests of 16 and 17 year olds that they do not go straight from school on to benefits, but into training, employment or further or higher education; and fully endorses the Government's training guarantee and the continued expansion of vocational, further and higher education.

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the importance that many hon. Members attach to policy matters, is it in order for the official Opposition in particular, but also the Liberal Democrats, to abstain in such a vital vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is an experienced campaigner in the House; she knows that that is not a point of order for me.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

ENERGY AND ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5074/94, relating to energy and economic and social


cohesion; and supports the Government's view that, while energy may make a welcome contribution to economic and social cohesion, energy projects, policies and programmes should not be used specifically to promote cohesion objectives unless it is clearly appropriate to do so, and that the development of an increasingly competitive and efficient energy sector has an important role to play in the economic progress of the Community.

GUARANTEES FOR CONSUMER GOODS AND AFTER SALES SERVICE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10635/93 relating to guarantees for consumer goods and after sales service, and endorses the Government's response to the Commission.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

That the draft Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

That the draft Weights and Measures (Cosmetic Products) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

That the draft Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

DEFENCE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

That the draft Betting and Lotteries (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

That the draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

FEES AND CHARGES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Seed Potatoes (Fees) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved. —[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Elmstead Market (Travellers' Site)

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is my honour and duty to present a petition from the parishioners of Elmstead Market. It concerns a gipsy site that is proposed for Grove arm, Elmstead Market, by Essex county council. It is contrary to the local plan, and will encourage development, waste agricultural land and pose a risk to historic woodland; it should not be proceeded with without the public inquiry to which the petition refers.
Out of an electorate of 1,353, 997 people—73.5 per cent.—have signed the petition, and 94.4 per cent. of those have supported it; only 59 of those asked to sign it declined. It has the strong support of all the residents of Elmstead.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to establish a full public enquiry as soon as a planning application has been made.

To lie upon the Table.

Military Bands

Mr. David Shaw: I have a petition on behalf of nearly 10,000 of my constituents, many of whom have worked with the campaign to keep the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal. It reads:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble petition of the residents of the District of Deal, Kent and beyond,
Sheweth
That there is concern in Deal and beyond about the Government's review of military bands and its impact on the Royal Marines School of Music remaining in Deal; That the people of Deal believe the Royal Marines School of Music should remain in Deal; That the people of Deal and beyond hereby demonstrate the considerable strength of feeling of the local community towards retaining the School of Music in Deal; That the people of Deal trust that any review of military bands will lead to the most sensible national solution, namely the development of a combined services School of Music in Deal because of its first rate suitability for such a role, both financially and logically.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will appeal to the Secretary of State for Defence to intervene to ensure the retention of the Royal Marines Music School in Deal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to present this petition, which is hugely important to my constituents and many local societies, including the Royal Marines Association, the Men of Kent, the Deal Society and many others in Deal who have a long and close connection with the Royal Marines School of Music.

To lie upon the Table.

Local Government (Cleveland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Stuart Bell: May I say at the outset that I and my parliamentary colleagues who have supported the four district option for Cleveland—my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), whom I am glad to see in his place, and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates)—fully support the decision that the Government announced yesterday on the future of Cleveland?
The Minister for Local Government and Planning announced that he was mindful of the need to ensure a smooth transition, with adequate time for the planning of change. It is clear, given the time needed to prepare the new unitary authorities, that a start date of 1 April 1996, with elections to be held in May 1995, will fulfil that requirement of a smooth transition with adequate time for planning.
The announcement has the support of the leaders and chief executives of the four district councils of Stockton, Langbaurgh, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough. Indeed, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the leader of Middlesbrough council, Councillor Mike Carr, stated:
Firstly (the new arrangements) will allow us to have elections before the new authorities commence their work. We have always argued that the new authorities should have a new mandate so that local people could exercise their democratic choice, and so the new councils could genuinely be a synthesis of the best of the two tiers of the current system.
Secondly, no less importantly, it will introduce a sense of certainty in the process and a realistic timetable. We believed that we could 'deliver' by April 1995, but it would have been a close run thing. We certainly hope that the announcement removes a serious potential source of friction for the County Council and that they will see their way in cooperating with the transfer of responsibilities.
It is not necessary for me to repeat the long litany of trajectories that we have been carried along to reach the point where the Minister made his statement yesterday. Suffice it to say that Cleveland county council was in the first tranche of the rolling programme of reviews announced on 3 June 1992 by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Because they were in the first tranche of reviews, their case will be settled before others. It is right and proper, and indeed inevitable, that when the draft orders have been through a final consultative procedure—a final turn of the wringer—an order should be laid to enable the Government's stated intention to be met.
The terms of the order should be such that, first, the districts can begin the preparatory work leading to the creation of the new authorities and, secondly, there can be certainty among the work force of the existing Cleveland county council as to their personal future.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is not it absolutely essential that the local authorities are under some compulsion, particularly Cleveland county council, to co-operate with the planning process before the new authorities are established?

Mr. Bell: The question of compulsion in a democracy rests uneasy with us all. What we always seek is a

consensus. What we hope we will see in this situation is a consensus approach to the problems of the four new authorities when the time comes.
From a party that still believes in a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power to workers and their families, it will hardly surprise the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment that we place great store on the future of the Cleveland county council work force. We are aware, as no doubt he is aware, of the serious uncertainty over job security during the review of local government overall, which is having a corrosive effect on staff morale and, indeed, employee relations. That uncertainty helps, rather than hinders, those who wish to resist change.
The Association of District Councils takes the view, as do the Association of County Councils and the Local Government Management Board, that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will make it impossible in practice for outgoing authorities to dismiss staff not placed in posts by vesting day, and such staff must be transferred for the successor authorities to deal with. It is my understanding that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office are coming independently to a similar conclusion with regard to local government reorganisation in Wales.
It is, therefore, in my view and in the view of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, incumbent on the Government to give urgent consideration to making a public statement accepting the need for all staff who wish to do so to be transferred to the new authorities. Paradoxically—if we can still believe in paradoxes—it would be not only in the Government's interests to be fair to the staff concerned, but in the interests of local government finance to make such a statement because the transitional costs would then be reduced.
The Opposition have always played absolutely straight on the question of local government reorganisation from the time that such reorganisation was announced. At the time the local government review was announced, Bryan Gould, late of this House and even later of these shores, stood at the Dispatch Box and said that there would be a positive response to the Government's proposals on structure, provided, of course, that the process of consultation was seen to be independent. In the case of the abolition of Cleveland county council, not only has the consultation been independent; it has also been upheld by the law of the land.
In my local press, I read that Cleveland county council has drawn comfort from judges' comments in their judgment last week with regard to Cleveland's request for a judicial review that the court had expressed doubts about the commission's public consultations.
It must have been very cold comfort indeed, since on all the counts put forward by Cleveland county council, it lost. The council said that the decision of the Local Government Commission and the Government was unreasonable. It lost. It said that the commission had misconstrued the policy guidance on joint arrangements. It lost. It said that there had been a lack of proper consultation. It lost. It said that the Secretary of State should have referred back Cleveland, as he referred Durham back. It lost. It said that it was unfair for Durham to benefit from the 1993 guidance, but not Cleveland. It lost on that, too. The court rightly pointed out that the four-district option was


supported by the majority of the local Membets of Parliament. It was also supported by an opinion poll and by direct responses.
The court pointed out that in the opinion poll there was a clear preference for one-tier local government—75 per cent. were in favour. As to who should comprise that tier, 31 per cent. supported the four district councils—8 per cent. favoured two councils. Direct responses showed a majority of 49 to 41 in favour of four councils. And the court, in its wisdom—whether the wisdom of Portia or the wisdom of Shylock is a matter for others to decide—referred to the submission of Cleveland county council that the Local Government Commission had paid too much attention to public opinion or vox pop, as it is now called. In the words of the learned judge, the wise and venerable judge:
If this amounts to a submission that democracy is not the panacea for all ills, it sounds odd coming from a county council.
It might also be as well to point out that in the dismissal of the action of Cleveland county council against the Local Government Commission and the Government, Cleveland was ordered to pay all the costs of the hearing. The costs have been estimated variously at between £175,000 and £200,000. The council conservatively estimates them at £100,000, although it does not state whether this is its costs as well as the costs of the Government. It is equivalent to a one-off payment of 65p per council taxpayer. Dipping one's hand into the pockets of the council tax payer to pay legal bills is not a matter of compunction for Cleveland county council.
Many far-fetched figures are bandied around by the council. It has said that the four-district option in Cleveland will cost £10 million a year more than the Teesside-Hartlepool option. But the Local Government Commission, the recommendations of which have been upheld by the court, estimates that the move away from the two-tier system will save between £6 million and £11 million a year. That means that the reorganisation will pay for itself within three years. That must be considered a satisfactory pay-back time to achieve a lasting basis for local democracy.
The four districts have said that savings should be passed on in full to service users as either reduced bills or improved services, with the merit that the services are both local and accountable. The basis of local democracy through the four-tier option will be the provision and co-ordination of services, the provision of a voice for local people, particularly those who are disadvantaged, reflecting the priorities of their communities and working as a catalyst to stimulate growth and regeneration in their specific areas.
There will, indeed, be a partnership between local authority, community and other agencies. There will, indeed, be shorter lines of communication. This will mean that the views and changing needs of the communities will be constantly reflected. There will be improved targeting of resources. The new authorities will serve identifiable communities. The four districts will be able to attract inward investment and co-operate on strategic issues.
Middlesbrough has already attracted more than £700 million in Government and European Union grants. This has led to the creation of 7,000 jobs. The Tees Valley Development Company will be a genuine partnership between the public and the private sectors. It will aim to provide a professional, one-step service to potential investors in our region. It will maximise and co-ordinate

the efforts going on in all sectors to create employment. The Tees Valley Development Company will allow much more co-ordinated and effective marketing. The Tees Valley Development Company will be a catalyst for growth and economic regeneration. This is a vital issue of job creation.
In short, the four districts are on course, the Tees Valley Development Company is on course and, with the Government's commitment to a timetable of May 1995 elections and a new authority in April 1996, the people of Cleveland will be on course to have their wishes respected. The question is then how soon can we assure those who work in Cleveland county council that they have a future. All four districts realise and fully accept that employees are their main resources and that reorganisation must be about creating structures in which they can work to best effect.
The Local Government Commission has estimated job reductions of about 2 per cent. across all authorities. The calculations by boroughs have led to similar assumptions. The reductions can be achieved by early retirement or voluntary redundancy, but the four districts wish to stress—through me on the Floor of the House—that they will be concentrating on job retention not job shedding. The four authorities fully recognise that they will need staff commitment and experience to make a success of their new authorities.
We are anxious about jobs, not redundancies. There is no doubt, however, that concern has been expressed about the current redundancy package envisaged. It is essential for there to be a fair and mandatory system of compensation. That is essential to complete the local government review successfully in Cleveland and, indeed, elsewhere.
I would, therefore, ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider carefully the outcome of the consultations that are taking place between various parties in local government —members, managers and employees alike—to smooth their local government review and to settle staff uncertainty.
As I said earlier, the Opposition have never played politics with local government reviews; nor do they seek to do so now. We are anxious that the review of local government should extend beyond Cleveland to cover the whole of shire England, within the framework laid down on 3 June 1992 by the then Secretary of State for the Environment.
We do not regard local government as "The Cherry Orchard" of Anton Chekhov—no cherry picking there please. Just as the journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step, so those Cleveland Members of Parliament who support the four-district option expect the order to be laid before this House at the earliest convenient moment, with appropriate powers given to the districts to create the new authority, and that the dates of May 1995 for elections and April 1996 for the new authority will be strictly adhered to.
As an Opposition, we shall also be looking over and beyond the boundaries of Cleveland, to be sure that there is no gerrymandering of commission recommendations for narrow party political advantage. We are glad that, in the case of Cleveland, full start-up elections will be held at the beginning of the shadow period for all new councils—as well as those in Cleveland, including those based on existing district boundaries.
Since a good point is always worth repeating, as Lloyd George might have said, we say again that the vast majority


of staff should automatically be transferred to the new councils and satisfactory compensation provided for any not transferred.
It is true that we live in a world where reality and the perception of reality become intermingled and where the perception of reality becomes more important than the reality itself. I am sorry to say that Cleveland county council has long passed that point. It must be in the interests of the work force of Cleveland county council for appropriate arrangements to begin to be made for their transfer to the new authorities. It must be in the interests of the people of Cleveland that the business community rallies around the Tees Valley Development Company.
There must be full officer co-operation on the ground between the four districts and the county council, so that there is a straightforward and homogenous transfer of services, in the interests of our local community. And there is the ultimate—respect for the sovereignty of Parliament, for this House and the other place. The Government have announced their intention to lay the appropriate order for elections and for the new authorities. The will of this House, in the event the order being carried, is not something which can be dissipated before courts, before judicial reviews, before delaying tactics, before obfuscation and distortion.
The people of Cleveland will demand no less than the fullest co-operation from those councillors who may themselves be candidates for the new authorities, and who may wish to submit themselves to the people of Cleveland on the principle that to be elected to the four districts is to serve, rather than to rule.
Cleveland county council cannot now be saved. It has fought a long and arduous battle for survival. It still has dignity and respect for the work that it has done during its existence. It would be sad for the work force, members and officers if it were now to lose that dignity and respect. It is a case of those who have ears, let them hear.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I welcome this debate on the future of local government in Cleveland, and I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for reorganisation in Cleveland and for the decision yesterday that the new unitary authorities should be established on 1 April 1996.
I am also pleased to see in the Chamber my hon. Friends the Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who have been tireless champions in favour of unitary authorities for Langbaurgh and Stockton respectively.
It may be helpful if I set out briefly how we have reached our current position. In July 1992, the then Secretary of State for the Environment issued a direction to the Local Government Commission to undertake a review of Cleveland and County Durham.
The commission must make its recommendations having regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government. I believe that in many ways these two criteria are mutually reinforcing. One of the best

ways of ensuring that local government is effective is having local authorities that people identify with and feel committed to.
The commission submitted its final report to the Secretary of State last November. The commission's main recommendation was that Cleveland county council should be abolished and there should be four unitary authorities covering the areas of the existing districts of Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Stockton and Langbaurgh. In Cleveland, a survey by the commission had shown a massive 75 per cent. of residents supporting the principle of unitary authorities. The survey had also shown that of the various options offered to them, the option of four unitary authorities had the greatest support among local people. This option also proved the most popular among those who responded to the commission's consultation.
In January, we accepted the commission's main recommendation of abolishing the county council and establishing four unitary authorities. This amply fulfils the criteria set out in the 1992 Act; that is, that there would be effective and convenient local government and that the identities of local people would be reflected. I believe that this decision has been widely welcomed in Cleveland.
We hope that the local authorities involved will work together to plan future services. It is important to make it clear that there can be no place for continuing trench warfare by those authorities that will disappear as a consequence of the review and, as the hon. Member made clear, of the decisions of Parliament. Such behaviour is to the detriment of local people and to the detriment of local government as a whole, and there is no place for that.
The Government's decision to abolish Cleveland county council was widely welcomed. However, there was and is one organisation that did not welcome it—the county council itself. As a result, it instituted judicial review proceedings against both the Local Government Commission and the Government.
The county council put forward various grounds for its legal challenge. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has said, the High Court has given judgment against the county council and condemned it in costs. As the judges in the High Court suggested, there was nothing wrong with the commission's recommendations or with the Government's decision to accept them; it was simply a case of the county council not liking what the commission proposed.

Mr. Michael Bates: I endorse fully what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said. Many of us find it deeply repugnant that one of reasons why the case was taken to the High Court, at the expense of the local taxpayer, was brought to light in the judgment. It said that the council had accused the Local Government Commission of paying too much attention to local opinion.
Does my hon. Friend recognise that when four times as many people support the commission's recommendation as favour the Teesside-Hartlepool option, taxpayers resent deeply the idea of having to contribute between £175,000 and £200,000 of their money for something with which they do not agree? I advise my hon. Friend of my intention to take this matter to the district auditor at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Baldry: Everything that my hon. Friend said is absolutely right. As I said earlier, a survey conducted by the commission showed that a massive 75 per cent. of


residents supported the principle of unitary authorities. The fact that Cleveland county council could seek to pray in aid, against the commission, the fact that so many people supported the commission's proposals underlines the comment of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that the county council has long since ceased to be able to distinguish between reality and imagination.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had originally said in May that his provisional decision, subject to the outcome of the judicial review, was that reorganisation should go ahead from 1 April 1995, with the elections to the new unitary authorities in May 1995. That timetable was certainly achievable and the district councils were keen to pursue it. There could have been a smooth transition with sufficient time for planning change so that there would be no risk to the delivery of services. The length of the legal proceedings, however, means that there is now a relatively short time between making an order and a start date of 1 April 1995.
Those circumstances have led us to the conclusion that it would be wiser to put back implementation to April 1996. However, and it is an important however, the elections to unitary councils will still be held in May 1995, giving the newly elected councils almost a year to prepare for their new functions. I know that some hon. Members had been concerned about having elections to the new authorities after they had been set up and I am sure that the new timetable will satisfy their concerns.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised understandable concerns about the implications of reorganisation for local government employees. We are totally committed to a fair treatment for staff. The Local Government Staff Commission was set up in England in May 1993 to advise my right hon. Friend on staffing issues arising from reorganisation. The staff commission has

visited all the authorities in the first tranche of the review to listen to their concerns and those of their staff. It has since issued a circular, which set out the rules for deciding which employees will be transferred to the successor authorities by staff transfer order. It describes the scope for open competition for senior posts and defines which employees will be eligible for prior consideration appointment to posts.
The majority of the county council's staff will, of course, simply transfer to successor councils. The staff commission will be advising on those categories of staff to be covered by automatic transfer. We expect that these will include almost all operational staff who provide services direct to local people, for example, teachers and care workers.
For those staff who do not transfer by transfer order, it will be for the district councils, in consultation with Cleveland county council, to decide whether any of them will nevertheless transfer on 1 April 1996 under existing employment legislation.
We have also issued further guidance to the staff commission, drawn up in consultation with the local authority associations and the staff commission itself, in order to provide as level a playing field as possible for staff of outgoing authorities compared with those of the continuing authorities.
Last month, we also issued a consultation paper which set out the Government's proposals for redundancy schemes specific to local government—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.